4.2 Article

Psychomotor Testing for Orthopedic Residency Applicants: A Pilot Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 820-827

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.02.004

关键词

orthopedic; residency; interview; motor skills; surgical skill; skills testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an objective motor skills testing system to aid in the evaluation of potential orthopedic residents. DESIGN: Participants attempted a battery of 5 motor skills tests (4 novel tests and the Grooved Pegboard [GPT] Test) in one 10-minute session. A percentile-based scoring system was created for each test based on raw scores. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare testing scores among 3 cohorts. Each novel test and overall scores were compared with GPT scores as a relative measure of validity. SETTING: The 2015 orthopedic surgery residency interview season at an academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty orthopedic residents and 72 nonresidents (15 community volunteers and 57 orthopedic surgery residency applicants). RESULTS: Overall, residents performed better than nonresidents (p < 0.0001) and applicants performed worse than residents or volunteers (p < 0.0001). There were positive correlations between the GPT score and overall battery score (r = 0.63), screw and nut test (r = 0.40), and mimic a structure test (r = 0.26). The fracture reduction test and drilling test scores did not correlate to performance on the GPT. CONCLUSIONS: Psychomotor testing for surgical applicants is an area in need of study. This investigation successfully piloted a novel battery of tests, which is easily reproducible and thus may be feasible for use in the orthopedic surgery residency interview setting. Longitudinal evaluation is required to explore correlation with future operative skill. ((C) 2017 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据