Development and Psychometric Validation of the Minho Suture Assessment Scale (Minho-SAS) for Medical Students

Nuno Silva Gonçalves; Rita Matos Sousa; Carlos Collares; Vítor Hugo Pereira; José Miguel Pêgo; M. Brownell Anderson

doi:10.20344/amp.23567

Autores

Nuno Silva Gonçalves School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS). School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Clinical Academic Center (2CA). Braga. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8781-1249
Rita Matos Sousa School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS). School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Clinical Academic Center (2CA). Braga. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6924-114X
Carlos Collares Medical Education Unit. Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. Universidade do Algarve. Faro. & European Board of Medical Assessors. Cardiff. Inspirali Educação. São Paulo. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0914-3430
Vítor Hugo Pereira School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS). School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Clinical Academic Center (2CA). Braga. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9314-0453
José Miguel Pêgo School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS). School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. & European Board of Medical Assessors. Cardiff. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9497-6543
M. Brownell Anderson School of Medicine. Universidade do Minho. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0448-6485

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.23567

Palavras-chave:

Avaliação Educacional, Competência Clínica, Estudantes de Medicina, Inquéritos e Questionários, Técnicas de Sutura/educação

Resumo

Introdução: Apesar do domínio da sutura constituir uma competência essencial na educação cirúrgica, os instrumentos existentes para a sua avaliação carecem de validação psicométrica ou especificidade para ensino pré-graduado. Este estudo teve como objetivo desenvolver e validar a Escala de Avaliação de Sutura Minho (Minho-SAS), para avaliar competências de sutura em estudantes de Medicina, avaliando a sua validade e fiabilidade enquanto ferramenta psicométrica.
Métodos: O processo de desenvolvimento envolveu a colaboração com equipas multidisciplinares e experientes para assegurar a validade de conteúdo. Foram utilizados dados de um grupo de estudantes de Medicina para a avaliação psicométrica. A dimensionalidade foi analisada através de análise paralela, critério de informação de Bayes, unidimensional congruence, item unidimensional congruence, variância comum explicada, variância comum explicada por item, e média dos resíduos absolutos dos itens. A validade com base na estrutura interna foi avaliada com análise do modelo Rasch e análise fatorial a partir da matriz de correlação tetracórica. A confiabilidade foi avaliada através dos erros padrão de medição do modelo Rasch para obtenção da curva de confiabilidade condicional e dos coeficientes de consistência interna alfa de Cronbach e ómega de McDonald.
Resultados: As análises sustentaram uma estrutura unidimensional. A solução unifatorial explicou 39,96% da variância, e as medidas de Rasch representaram 29,15% (16,43% - participantes e 12,72% - itens). As correlações residuais, cargas fatoriais e estatísticas de ajuste dos itens encontravam-se dentro de valores aceitáveis. Os índices de confiabilidade foram satisfatórios: Rasch = 0,706; ómega de McDonald = 0,889; alfa de Cronbach = 0,883.
Conclusão: A Minho-SAS revela-se um instrumento robusto, especificamente desenvolvido para avaliar competências de sutura em estudantes de Medicina. A análise Rasch apresentou resultados menos favoráveis que a análise fatorial, embora aceitáveis. Apesar do seu potencial considerável, é fundamental explorar a Minho-SAS em diferentes populações para confirmar a sua aplicabilidade e impacto mais amplos na educação médica e na prática clínica.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Ten Cate O, Khursigara-Slattery N, Cruess RL, Hamstra SJ, Steinert Y, Sternszus R. Medical competence as a multilayered construct. Med Educ. 2024;58:93-104.

Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002;287:226.

Witheridge A, Ferns G, Scott-Smith W. Revisiting Miller’s pyramid in medical education: the gap between traditional assessment and diagnostic reasoning. Int J Med Educ. 2019;10:191.

Frank JR, Danoff D. The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician competencies. Med Teach. 2007;29:642-7.

Moskowitz EJ, Nash DB. Accreditation council for graduate medical education competencies: practice-based learning and systems-based practice. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22:351-82.

Ten Cate O. Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ. 2005;39:1176-7.

Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. Cox M, Irby DM, editors. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387-96.

Emmanuel T, Nicolaides M, Theodoulou I, Yoong W, Lymperopoulos N, Sideris M. Suturing skills for medical students: a systematic review. In Vivo. 2021;35:1-12.

Vaidya A, Aydin A, Ridgley J, Raison N, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Current status of technical skills assessment tools in surgery: a systematic review. J Surg Res. 2020;246:342-78.

Bilgic E, Endo S, Lebedeva E, Takao M, McKendy KM, Watanabe Y, et al. A scoping review of assessment tools for laparoscopic suturing. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:3009-23.

Almeland SK, Lindford A, Sundhagen HP, Hufthammer KO, Strandenes E, Svendsen HL, et al. The effect of microsurgical training on novice medical students’ basic surgical skills - a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Plast Surg. 2020;43:459-66.

Dormegny L, Neumann N, Lejay A, Sauer A, Gaucher D, Proust F, et al. Multiple metrics assessment method for a reliable evaluation of corneal suturing skills. Sci Rep. 2023;13:2920.

Nugent E, Joyce C, Perez-Abadia G, Frank J, Sauerbier M, Neary P, et al. Factors influencing microsurgical skill acquisition during a dedicated training course. Microsurgery. 2012;32:649-56.

Chipman JG, Schmitz CC. Using objective structured assessment of technical skills to evaluate a basic skills simulation curriculum for first-year surgical residents. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:364.

Goova MT, Hollett LA, Tesfay ST, Gala RB, Puzziferri N, Kehdy FJ, et al. Implementation, construct validity, and benefit of a proficiency-based knot-tying and suturing curriculum. J Surg Educ. 2008;65:309-15.

Sato E, Mitani S, Nishio N, Kitani T, Sanada T, Ugumori T, et al. Development of proficiency-based knot-tying and suturing curriculum for otolaryngology residents: a pilot study. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2020;47:291-8.

Thinggaard E, Zetner DB, Fabrin A, Christensen JB, Konge L. A study of surgical residents’ self-assessment of open surgery skills using gap analysis. Simul Healthc. 2023;18:305-11.

Buckley CE, Kavanagh DO, Gallagher TK, Conroy RM, Traynor OJ, Neary PC. Does aptitude influence the rate at which proficiency is achieved for laparoscopic appendectomy? J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:1020-7.

Nickel F, Brzoska JA, Gondan M, Rangnick RM, Chu J, Kenngott HG, et al. Virtual reality training versus blended learning of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial with laparoscopic novices. Medicine. 2015;94:e764.

Ebina K, Abe T, Hotta K, Higuchi M, Furumido J, Iwahara N, et al. Objective evaluation of laparoscopic surgical skills in wet lab training based on motion analysis and machine learning. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407:2123-32.

Sundhagen HP, Almeland SK, Hansson E. Development and validation of a new assessment tool for suturing skills in medical students. Eur J Plast Surg. 2018;41:207-16.

Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondré K, Stanbridge D, et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005;190:107-13.

De Champlain AF. A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44:109-17.

Bond T, Yan Z, Heene M. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 4th ed. New York: Routledge; 2020.

Tavakol M, Dennick R. The foundations of measurement and assessment in medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39:1010-5.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. 2014. [cited 2024 Feb 06]. Available from: https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/standards_2014edition.pdf.

Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:1-18.

Goodhue DL, Lewis W, Thompson R. Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Q. 2012;36:981-1001.

Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84:273-8.

Baker FB. The basics of item response theory. 2nd ed. 2001. [cited 2025 Mar 23]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458219.

Walsh A, Cao R, Wong D, Kantschuster R, Matini L, Wilson J, et al. Using item response theory (IRT) to improve the efficiency of the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity index (SCCAI) for patients with ulcerative colitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21:132.

Institute for Objective Measurement. What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? [cited 2023 Nov 16]. Available from: https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt162f.htm.

Cecilio-Fernandes D, Medema H, Collares CF, Schuwirth L, Cohen-Schotanus J, Tio RA. Comparison of formula and number-right scoring in undergraduate medical training: a Rasch model analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:192.

Institute for Objective Measurement. Dichotomous mean-square fit statistics. [cited 2023 Nov 16]. Available from: https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt82a.htm.

Wood TJ, Pugh D. Are rating scales really better than checklists for measuring increasing levels of expertise? Med Teach. 2020;42:46-51.

Ilgen JS, Ma IW, Hatala R, Cook DA. A systematic review of validity evidence for checklists versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Med Educ. 2015;49:161-73.