Competency-Based Training and Simulation: Making a "valid" Argument

Yasser A. Noureldin, Jason Y. Lee, Elspeth M. McDougall, Robert M. Sweet

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

The use of simulation as an assessment tool is much more controversial than is its utility as an educational tool. However, without valid simulation-based assessment tools, the ability to objectively assess technical skill competencies in a competency-based medical education framework will remain challenging. The current literature in urologic simulation-based training and assessment uses a definition and framework of validity that is now outdated. This is probably due to the absence of awareness rather than an absence of comprehension. The following review article provides the urologic community an updated taxonomy on validity theory as it relates to simulation-based training and assessments and translates our simulation literature to date into this framework. While the old taxonomy considered validity as distinct subcategories and focused on the simulator itself, the modern taxonomy, for which we translate the literature evidence, considers validity as a unitary construct with a focus on interpretation of simulator data/scores.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)84-93
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of endourology
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2018

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright 2018, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Competency-based education
  • Surgeons
  • Trainees
  • Urology
  • Validity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Competency-Based Training and Simulation: Making a "valid" Argument'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this