Download PDF
Eur J Pediatr Surg 2021; 31(01): 025-033
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715438
Original Article

Are Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment of Added Value in Training Complex Pediatric Surgical Skills?

Maja Joosten 
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Guus M. J. Bökkerink
2   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Bas H. Verhoeven
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Jonathan Sutcliffe
3   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, United Kingdom
,
Ivo de Blaauw
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Sanne M. B. I. Botden
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Self-assessment aids “reflection-before-practice,” which is expected to result in a better understanding of one's strengths and weaknesses and consequently a better overall performance. This is, however, rarely used in surgical training. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between self-, peer-, and expert assessment on surgical skills of pediatric surgical trainees.

Materials and Methods A competency assessment tool for the posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (CAT-PSARP) was previously developed and validated. During international hands-on pediatric colorectal workshops in 2019 and 2020, participants practiced the PSARP on an inanimate anorectal malformation model. They were assisted by a peer and assessed by two independent expert observers, using the CAT-PSARP. After the training session, both self- and peer assessment were completed, using the same CAT-PSARP.

Results A total of 79 participants were included. No correlation was found between the overall CAT-PSARP scores of the expert observers and the self-assessment (r = 0.179, p = 0.116), while a weak correlation was found between experts and peer assessment (r = 0.317, p = 0.006). When comparing the self-assessment scores with peer assessment, a moderate correlation was found for the overall performance score (r = 0.495, p < 0.001). Additionally, the participants who were first to perform the procedure scored significantly better than those who trained second on the overall performance (mean 27.2 vs. 24.4, p < 0.001).

Conclusion Participants, peers, and experts seemed to have a unique view on the performance during training because there was little correlation between outcomes of the trainees and the experts. Self-assessment may be useful for reflection during training; however, expert assessment seems to be essential for assessment of surgical skills.

Keywords

self-assessment - peer assessment - medical education - pediatric surgery


Publication History

Received: 12 May 2020

Accepted: 01 July 2020

Article published online:
09 August 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Nagendran M, Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Loizidou M, Davidson BR. Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 27 (08) CD006575
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Eva KW, Regehr G. “I'll never play professional football” and other fallacies of self-assessment. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2008; 28 (01) 14-19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Boud D. Avoiding the traps: seeking good practice in the use of self-assessment and reflection in professional courses. J Soc Work Educ 1999; 18 (02) 121-132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Boud D, Falchikov N. Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings. High Educ 1989; 18: 529-549
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (04) 387-396
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Ward M, Gruppen L, Regehr G. Measuring self-assessment: current state of the art. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2002; 7 (01) 63-80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Gordon MJ. Self-assessment programs and their implications for health professions training. Acad Med 1992; 67 (10) 672-679
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296 (09) 1094-1102
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ganni S, Chmarra MK, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ. Self-assessment in laparoscopic surgical skills training: Is it reliable?. Surg Endosc 2017; 31 (06) 2451-2456
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ganni S, Botden SMBI, Schaap DP, Verhoeven BH, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ. “Reflection-Before-Practice” Improves Self-Assessment and End-Performance in Laparoscopic Surgical Skills Training. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (02) 527-533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Hu Y, Kim H, Mahmutovic A, Choi J, Le I, Rasmussen S. Verification of accurate technical insight: a prerequisite for self-directed surgical training. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2015; 20 (01) 181-191
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Evans AW, Leeson RM, Petrie A. Reliability of peer and self-assessment scores compared with trainers' scores following third molar surgery. Med Educ 2007; 41 (09) 866-872
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Joosten M, Bökkerink GMJ, Sutcliffe J. et al. Validation of a newly developed competency assessment tool for the Posterior Sagittal Anorectoplasty.
  • 14 IJgosse WM, Leijte E, Gann S. et al. Competency assessment tool for laparoscopic suturing: development and validation. Surg Endosc 2019; •••
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Bonett DG, Wirght TA. Sample size requiremens for estimating Pearson, Kendall and Spearman correlations. Psychometrika 2002; 65 (01) 23-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Pediatrickboxx, Accessed March 27, 2020 at: www.pediatrickboxx.com
  • 17 Evans AW, Leeson RM, Newton John TR, Petrie A. The influence of self-deception and impression management upon self-assessment in oral surgery. Br Dent J 2005; 198 (12) 765-769
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999; 77 (06) 1121-1134
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Boud D. Enhancing Learning through Self-Assessment, 1st ed. New York: RoutledgeFalmer; 1995
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Cheng W, Warren M. Having second thoughts: students perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Stud High Educ 2006; 5: 273-278
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Norcini JJ. Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ 2003; 37 (06) 539-543
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar