Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Simulation-based education is increasingly used to support procedural training while minimizing patient risk. This study aimed to gather validity evidence for a low-cost inanimate simulation model designed for training in subclavian central venous catheterization (CVC).</p> Methods <p>A cross-sectional validation study was conducted following Messick’s framework. Twenty participants were included: 10 sixth-year medical students with no prior experience in CVC (novices) and 10 experienced general surgeons (experts). Content validity was assessed using an expert survey and quantified with the Content Validity Index (CVI). Technical performance was evaluated using a 13-item procedural checklist scored by two independent evaluators, with interrater reliability assessed using kappa. Construct validity was examined using a known-groups approach comparing performance outcomes between experts and novices.</p> Results <p>All content validity items achieved an item-level CVI of 1.00, with a scale-level CVI/Ave of 1.00. Interrater reliability for checklist scoring was perfect (κ = 1.00). The procedural checklist demonstrated moderate internal consistency (KR-20 = 0.63), with ceiling effects in several fundamental steps. Experts achieved higher checklist scores (100.0% vs 85.4 ± 10.5, <i>p</i> = 0.002), shorter procedure times (5.28 ± 0.79 vs 11.61 ± 4.67&#xa0;min, <i>p</i> = 0.002), higher first-attempt success rates (70% vs 10%, <i>p</i> = 0.020), and greater procedural autonomy (100% vs 10% independent completion, <i>p</i> = 0.0003). No complications occurred among experts, whereas novices experienced simulated complications in 30% of attempts.</p> Conclusions <p>This study provides validity evidence supporting the interpretation and use of scores obtained with a low-cost inanimate simulation model for training and assessment of subclavian CVC placement. The ability of these scores to discriminate between novice and expert performance contributes construct validity evidence consistent with this intended interpretation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Validation of an inanimate simulation model for subclavian central venous catheterization training

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月21日

查看全文
  • Luz Galvis-Arenas,
  • Omaira Rodríguez

摘要

Purpose

Simulation-based education is increasingly used to support procedural training while minimizing patient risk. This study aimed to gather validity evidence for a low-cost inanimate simulation model designed for training in subclavian central venous catheterization (CVC).

Methods

A cross-sectional validation study was conducted following Messick’s framework. Twenty participants were included: 10 sixth-year medical students with no prior experience in CVC (novices) and 10 experienced general surgeons (experts). Content validity was assessed using an expert survey and quantified with the Content Validity Index (CVI). Technical performance was evaluated using a 13-item procedural checklist scored by two independent evaluators, with interrater reliability assessed using kappa. Construct validity was examined using a known-groups approach comparing performance outcomes between experts and novices.

Results

All content validity items achieved an item-level CVI of 1.00, with a scale-level CVI/Ave of 1.00. Interrater reliability for checklist scoring was perfect (κ = 1.00). The procedural checklist demonstrated moderate internal consistency (KR-20 = 0.63), with ceiling effects in several fundamental steps. Experts achieved higher checklist scores (100.0% vs 85.4 ± 10.5, p = 0.002), shorter procedure times (5.28 ± 0.79 vs 11.61 ± 4.67 min, p = 0.002), higher first-attempt success rates (70% vs 10%, p = 0.020), and greater procedural autonomy (100% vs 10% independent completion, p = 0.0003). No complications occurred among experts, whereas novices experienced simulated complications in 30% of attempts.

Conclusions

This study provides validity evidence supporting the interpretation and use of scores obtained with a low-cost inanimate simulation model for training and assessment of subclavian CVC placement. The ability of these scores to discriminate between novice and expert performance contributes construct validity evidence consistent with this intended interpretation.