Search

To develop and evaluate an objective method of technical skills assessment for graduating subspecialists in colorectal (CR) surgery-the Colorectal Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (COSATS).It may be reasonable for the public to assume that surgeons certified as competent have had their technical skills assessed. However, technical skill, despite being the hallmark of a surgeon, is not directly assessed at the time of certification by surgical boards.A procedure-based, multistation technical skills examination was developed to reflect a sample of the range of skills necessary for CR surgical practice. These consisted of bench, virtual reality, and cadaveric models. Reliability and construct validity were evaluated by comparing 10 graduating CR residents with 10 graduating general surgery (GS) residents from across North America. Expert CR surgeons, blinded to level of training, evaluated performance using a task-specific checklist and a global rating scale. The mean global rating score was used as the overall examination score and a passing score was set at "borderline competent for CR practice."The global rating scale demonstrated acceptable interstation reliability (0.69) for a homogeneous group of examinees. Both the overall checklist and global rating scores effectively discriminated between CR and GS residents (P0.01), with 27% of the variance attributed to level of training. Nine CR residents but only 3 GS residents were deemed competent.The Colorectal Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill effectively discriminated between CR and GS residents. With further validation, the Colorectal Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill could be incorporated into the colorectal board examination where it would be the first attempt of a surgical specialty to formally assess technical skill at the time of certification.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the scores from "key feature" cases in the self-assessment of colon and rectal surgeons. Background: Key feature (KF) cases specifically focus on the assessment of the unique challenges, critical decisions, and difficult aspects of the identification and management of clinical problems in practice. KF cases have been used to assess medical students and residents but rarely for specialists. Methods: Responses from all 256 participants taking the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) Colon and Rectal Surgery Educational Program (CARSEP) V Self-assessment Examination (SAE) from 1997 to 2002 were scored and analyzed, including score reliability, item analysis for the factual (50 multiple-choice questions (MCQ)) and applied (9 KF cases) knowledge portions of the SAE, and the effect of examination preparation, examination setting, specialization, Board certification, and clinical experience on scores. Results: The reliability (Cronbach alpha) of the scores for the MCQ and KF components was 0.97 and 0.95, respectively. The applied KF component of the SAE was more difficult than the factual MCQ component (0.52 versus 0.80, P < 0.001). Mean item discrimination (upper-lower groups) was 0.59 and 0.66 for the MCQ and KF components, respectively. Taking the test at the annual meeting was harder than at home (0.41 versus 0.81, P < 0.001). Content-related validity evidence for the KF cases was supported by mapping KF cases onto the examination blueprint and by judgments from expert colorectal surgeons about the challenging and critical nature of the KFs used. Construct validity of the KF cases was supported by incremental performance related to types of practice (general, anorectal, and colorectal), levels and types of Board certification, and years of clinical experience. Conclusions: The self-assessment of surgical specialists, in this case colorectal surgeons, using KF cases is possible and yielded reliable and valid scores.