Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation: Virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center

Dimitrios Stefanidis, Randy Haluck, Tai Pham, J. Bruce Dunne, Timothy Reinke, Sarah Markley, James R. Korndorffer, Paul Arellano, Daniel B. Jones, Daniel J. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems. Methods: Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement. Results: Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1158-1164
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume21
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2007

Fingerprint

Workload
Reproducibility of Results
Learning
United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Laparoscopes
Frustration
Demography
Equipment and Supplies
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Construct validity
  • Face validity
  • Laparoscopic camera navigation
  • Simulation
  • Skills assessment
  • Virtual reality
  • Workload

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation : Virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center. / Stefanidis, Dimitrios; Haluck, Randy; Pham, Tai; Dunne, J. Bruce; Reinke, Timothy; Markley, Sarah; Korndorffer, James R.; Arellano, Paul; Jones, Daniel B.; Scott, Daniel J.

In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, Vol. 21, No. 7, 07.2007, p. 1158-1164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stefanidis, Dimitrios ; Haluck, Randy ; Pham, Tai ; Dunne, J. Bruce ; Reinke, Timothy ; Markley, Sarah ; Korndorffer, James R. ; Arellano, Paul ; Jones, Daniel B. ; Scott, Daniel J. / Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation : Virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center. In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2007 ; Vol. 21, No. 7. pp. 1158-1164.
@article{7a362d423dd842ba8fdfcb9f58a8ab10,
title = "Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation: Virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center",
abstract = "Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems. Methods: Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement. Results: Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.",
keywords = "Construct validity, Face validity, Laparoscopic camera navigation, Simulation, Skills assessment, Virtual reality, Workload",
author = "Dimitrios Stefanidis and Randy Haluck and Tai Pham and Dunne, {J. Bruce} and Timothy Reinke and Sarah Markley and Korndorffer, {James R.} and Paul Arellano and Jones, {Daniel B.} and Scott, {Daniel J.}",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "1158--1164",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation

T2 - Virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center

AU - Stefanidis, Dimitrios

AU - Haluck, Randy

AU - Pham, Tai

AU - Dunne, J. Bruce

AU - Reinke, Timothy

AU - Markley, Sarah

AU - Korndorffer, James R.

AU - Arellano, Paul

AU - Jones, Daniel B.

AU - Scott, Daniel J.

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems. Methods: Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement. Results: Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.

AB - Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems. Methods: Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement. Results: Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.

KW - Construct validity

KW - Face validity

KW - Laparoscopic camera navigation

KW - Simulation

KW - Skills assessment

KW - Virtual reality

KW - Workload

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34347401627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34347401627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9

DO - 10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 17149551

AN - SCOPUS:34347401627

VL - 21

SP - 1158

EP - 1164

JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 7

ER -