TY - JOUR
T1 - Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation
T2 - Virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center
AU - Stefanidis, Dimitrios
AU - Haluck, Randy
AU - Pham, Tai
AU - Dunne, J. Bruce
AU - Reinke, Timothy
AU - Markley, Sarah
AU - Korndorffer, James R.
AU - Arellano, Paul
AU - Jones, Daniel B.
AU - Scott, Daniel J.
PY - 2007/7
Y1 - 2007/7
N2 - Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems. Methods: Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement. Results: Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.
AB - Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems. Methods: Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement. Results: Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.
KW - Construct validity
KW - Face validity
KW - Laparoscopic camera navigation
KW - Simulation
KW - Skills assessment
KW - Virtual reality
KW - Workload
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34347401627&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34347401627&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9
DO - 10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 17149551
AN - SCOPUS:34347401627
SN - 0930-2794
VL - 21
SP - 1158
EP - 1164
JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
IS - 7
ER -