Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) in simulation-based medical education: Translation and validation of the German version.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
20
10
2020
accepted:
16
12
2020
entrez:
31
12
2020
pubmed:
1
1
2021
medline:
23
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Debriefing is essential for effective learning during simulation-based medical education. To assess the quality of debriefings, reliable and validated tools are necessary. One widely used validated tool is the Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD), which was originally developed in English. The aim of this study was to translate the OSAD into German, and to evaluate the reliability and validity of this German version (G-OSAD) according the 'Standards of Educational and Psychological Measurement'. In Phase 1, the validity evidence based on content was established by a multistage cross-cultural adaptation translation of the original English OSAD. Additionally, we collected expert input on the adequacy of the content of the G-OSAD to measure debriefing quality. In Phase 2, three trained raters assessed 57 video recorded debriefings to gather validity evidence based on internal structure. Interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and composite reliability were examined. Finally, we assessed the internal structure by applying confirmatory factorial analysis. The expert input supported the adequacy of the content of the G-OSAD to measure debriefing quality. Interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) was excellent for the average ratings (three raters: ICC = 0.848; two raters: ICC = 0.790), and good for the single rater (ICC = 0.650). Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.976), internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.865), and composite reliability was excellent (ω = 0.93). Factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of the G-OSAD, which indicates that these G-OSAD ratings measure debriefing quality as intended. The G-OSAD shows good psychometric qualities to assess debriefing quality, which are comparable to the original OSAD. Thus, this G-OSAD is a tool that has the potential to optimise the quality of debriefings in German-speaking countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33382848
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244816
pii: PONE-D-20-32979
pmc: PMC7774931
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.13061555.v1']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0244816Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Hum Factors. 2013 Feb;55(1):231-45
pubmed: 23516804
Simul Healthc. 2007 Summer;2(2):115-25
pubmed: 19088616
Simul Healthc. 2006 Spring;1(1):49-55
pubmed: 19088574
Simul Healthc. 2006 Winter;1(4):252-6
pubmed: 19088599
Acad Med. 2011 Jun;86(6):706-11
pubmed: 21512370
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000 Aug;32(3):396-402
pubmed: 11029811
Psychometrika. 1965 Jun;30:179-85
pubmed: 14306381
Nurse Educ Today. 2014 Jun;34(6):e58-63
pubmed: 24169444
Med Teach. 2009 Jul;31(7):e287-94
pubmed: 19811136
Med Educ. 2014 Jul;48(7):657-66
pubmed: 24909527
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):50-63
pubmed: 20078756
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Jun;167(6):528-36
pubmed: 23608924
Int J Med Educ. 2011 Jun 27;2:53-55
pubmed: 28029643
JAMA. 2011 Sep 7;306(9):978-88
pubmed: 21900138
Simul Healthc. 2006 Spring;1(1):23-5
pubmed: 19088569
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;15(11):1010-6
pubmed: 18945231
Br J Psychol. 2014 Aug;105(3):399-412
pubmed: 24844115
Anesthesiology. 2006 Aug;105(2):279-85
pubmed: 16871061
Multivariate Behav Res. 1999 Apr 1;34(2):181-97
pubmed: 26753935
Struct Equ Modeling. 2013 Jan 1;20(1):148-156
pubmed: 23418401
Multivariate Behav Res. 1979 Oct 1;14(4):403-14
pubmed: 26804437
Simul Healthc. 2012 Oct;7(5):288-94
pubmed: 22902606
Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):982-8
pubmed: 22895396
Can J Anaesth. 2014 Jun;61(6):571-82
pubmed: 24664414