Validity evidence for observational ERCP competency assessment tools: A systematic review

Rishad Khan*, Hoomam Homsi, Nikko Gimpaya, James Lisondra, Nasruddin Sabrie, Reza Gholami, Rishi Bansal, Michael A. Scaffidi, David Lightfoot, Paul D. James, Keith Siau, Nauzer Forbes, Sachin Wani, Rajesh N. Keswani, Catharine M. Walsh, Samir C. Grover

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Assessment of competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is critical to support learning and document competence. Validity evidence supporting ERCP observational assessment tools has not been systematically evaluated. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using electronic databases and hand-searching from inception until August 2021 for studies evaluating observational assessment tools of ERCP performance. We used a unified validity framework to characterize validity evidence from five sources: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. Each domain was assigned a score of 0-3 (maximum score 15). We assessed educational utility and methodological quality using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument, respectively. Results: From 2769 records, we included 17 studies evaluating 7 assessment tools. Five tools were studied for clinical ERCP, one on simulated ERCP, and one on simulated and clinical ERCP. Validity evidence scores ranged from 2-12. The Bethesda ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (BESAT), ERCP Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Tool (ERCP DOPS), and The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT) had the strongest validity evidence with scores of 10, 12, and 11, respectively. Regarding educational utility, most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal additional resources. Overall methodological quality was strong, with scores ranging from 10-12.5 (maximum 13.5). Conclusions: The BESAT, ERCP DOPS, and TEESAT have strong validity evidence compared to other assessments. Integrating tools into training may help drive learners' development and support competency decision-making.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalEndoscopy
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2022

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validity evidence for observational ERCP competency assessment tools: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this