4.4 Article

Crowd-Sourced Assessment of Technical Skill: A Valid Method for Discriminating Basic Robotic Surgery Skills

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 1295-1301

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2015.0191

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-09-1-0714]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A surgeon's skill in the operating room has been shown to correlate with a patient's clinical outcome. The prompt accurate assessment of surgical skill remains a challenge, in part, because expert faculty reviewers are often unavailable. By harnessing the power of large readily available crowds through the Internet, rapid, accurate, and low-cost assessments may be achieved. We hypothesized that assessments provided by crowd workers highly correlate with expert surgeons' assessments. Materials and Methods: A group of 49 surgeons from two hospitals performed two dry-laboratory robotic surgical skill assessment tasks. The performance of these tasks was video recorded and posted online for evaluation using Amazon Mechanical Turk. The surgical tasks in each video were graded by (n=30) varying crowd workers and (n=3) experts using a modified global evaluative assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) grading tool, and the mean scores were compared using Cronbach's alpha statistic. Results: GEARS evaluations from the crowd were obtained for each video and task and compared with the GEARS ratings from the expert surgeons. The crowd-based performance scores agreed with the performance assessments by experts with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.84 and 0.92 for the two tasks, respectively. Conclusion: The assessment of surgical skill by crowd workers resulted in a high degree of agreement with the scores provided by expert surgeons in the evaluation of basic robotic surgical dry-laboratory tasks. Crowd responses cost less and were much faster to acquire. This study provides evidence that crowds may provide an adjunctive method for rapidly providing feedback of skills to training and practicing surgeons.

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

4.4
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