Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia

Background: We aimed to examine the validity and reliability of previously developed criterion-referenced assessment checklist (AC) and global rating scale (GRS) to assess performance in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA). Methods: Twenty-one anaesthetists’ single, real-time, UGRA proced...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shafqat, Atif, Rafi, M., Thanawala, Vishal, Bedforth, Nigel M., Hardman, J.G., McCahon, Robert A.
Format: Article
Published: Elsevier 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52635/
_version_ 1848798772704837632
author Shafqat, Atif
Rafi, M.
Thanawala, Vishal
Bedforth, Nigel M.
Hardman, J.G.
McCahon, Robert A.
author_facet Shafqat, Atif
Rafi, M.
Thanawala, Vishal
Bedforth, Nigel M.
Hardman, J.G.
McCahon, Robert A.
author_sort Shafqat, Atif
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description Background: We aimed to examine the validity and reliability of previously developed criterion-referenced assessment checklist (AC) and global rating scale (GRS) to assess performance in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA). Methods: Twenty-one anaesthetists’ single, real-time, UGRA procedures (total: 21 blocks) were assessed using 22-item AC and 9-item GRS scored on a 3-point and 5-point Likert scales respectively. We used one-way ANOVA to compare assessment scores between 3 groups (group I: ≤30 blocks in the preceding year; group II: 31–100; group III: >100). Concurrent validity was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation (r). We calculated type-A intra- class correlation coefficient (ICC) using an absolute agreement definition in two-way random effects model, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) using absolute agreement between raters. The inter-item consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results: Greater UGRA experience in the preceding year was associated with better AC [F (2,18) 12.01; p <0.001] and GRS [F (2,18) 7.44; p =0.004] scores. There was strong correlation between mean AC and GRS scores [r=0.73 (p <0.001)] and strong inter-item consistency for AC (α = 0.94) and GRS (α = 0.83). The ICC (95% CI) and IRR (95% CI) for AC was 0.96 (0.95 – 0.96) and 0.91 (0.88 – 0.95) respectively and 0.93 (0.90 – 0.94) and 0.80 (0.74 – 0.86) for GRS. Conclusions: Both assessments differentiated between individuals who have performed fewer (≤30) and many (>100) blocks in the preceding year, supporting construct validity. It also established concurrent validity and overall reliability. We recommend both tools may be used in UGRA assessment.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T20:25:05Z
format Article
id nottingham-52635
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T20:25:05Z
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-526352024-08-15T15:29:51Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52635/ Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia Shafqat, Atif Rafi, M. Thanawala, Vishal Bedforth, Nigel M. Hardman, J.G. McCahon, Robert A. Background: We aimed to examine the validity and reliability of previously developed criterion-referenced assessment checklist (AC) and global rating scale (GRS) to assess performance in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA). Methods: Twenty-one anaesthetists’ single, real-time, UGRA procedures (total: 21 blocks) were assessed using 22-item AC and 9-item GRS scored on a 3-point and 5-point Likert scales respectively. We used one-way ANOVA to compare assessment scores between 3 groups (group I: ≤30 blocks in the preceding year; group II: 31–100; group III: >100). Concurrent validity was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation (r). We calculated type-A intra- class correlation coefficient (ICC) using an absolute agreement definition in two-way random effects model, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) using absolute agreement between raters. The inter-item consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results: Greater UGRA experience in the preceding year was associated with better AC [F (2,18) 12.01; p <0.001] and GRS [F (2,18) 7.44; p =0.004] scores. There was strong correlation between mean AC and GRS scores [r=0.73 (p <0.001)] and strong inter-item consistency for AC (α = 0.94) and GRS (α = 0.83). The ICC (95% CI) and IRR (95% CI) for AC was 0.96 (0.95 – 0.96) and 0.91 (0.88 – 0.95) respectively and 0.93 (0.90 – 0.94) and 0.80 (0.74 – 0.86) for GRS. Conclusions: Both assessments differentiated between individuals who have performed fewer (≤30) and many (>100) blocks in the preceding year, supporting construct validity. It also established concurrent validity and overall reliability. We recommend both tools may be used in UGRA assessment. Elsevier 2018-07-31 Article PeerReviewed Shafqat, Atif, Rafi, M., Thanawala, Vishal, Bedforth, Nigel M., Hardman, J.G. and McCahon, Robert A. (2018) Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 121 (4). pp. 867-875. ISSN 1471-6771 Anaesthetists; Checklist; Educational assessment; Reproducibility of results; Ultrasound https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091218305233?via%3Dihub
spellingShingle Anaesthetists; Checklist; Educational assessment; Reproducibility of results; Ultrasound
Shafqat, Atif
Rafi, M.
Thanawala, Vishal
Bedforth, Nigel M.
Hardman, J.G.
McCahon, Robert A.
Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
title Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
title_full Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
title_fullStr Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
title_full_unstemmed Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
title_short Validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
title_sort validity and reliability of an objective structured assessment tool for performance of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia
topic Anaesthetists; Checklist; Educational assessment; Reproducibility of results; Ultrasound
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52635/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52635/