TY - JOUR
T1 - Reliability and validity of a test designed to assess combat medics' readiness to perform life-saving procedures
AU - Schmitz, Connie C.
AU - Chipman, Jeffrey G.
AU - Yoshida, Ken
AU - Vogel, Rachel Isaksson
AU - Sainfort, François
AU - Beilman, Gregory
AU - Clinton, Joseph
AU - Cooper, Jimmy
AU - Reihsen, Troy
AU - Sweet, Robert M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Reprint & Copyright © 2014 Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S.
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Objectives: Reducing preventable deaths because of uncontrolled hemorrhage, tension pneumothorax, and airway loss is a priority. As part of a research initiative comparing different training models, this study evaluated the reliability and validity of a test that assesses combat medic performance during a polytrauma scenario using live animal models.
Methods: Nine procedural checklists and seven global rating scales were piloted with four cohorts of soldiers (n = 94) at two U.S. training sites. Cohorts represented “novice” to “proficient” trainees. Procedure scores and a mean global score were calculated per subject. The intraclass correlation was calculated per procedure, with 0.70 as the threshold for acceptability. An overall difference among cohorts was hypothesized: Cohort 4 (proficient) > Cohort 3 (competent) > Cohort 2 (beginners) > Cohort 1 (novice) trainees. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and analysis of variance. Results: At Site A, intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 74% to 93% for 6 of 9 procedures. Cohorts differed significantly on hemorrhage control, needle decompression, cricothyrotomy, amputation management, chest tube insertion, and mean global scores. Cohort 4 outperformed the others, and Cohorts 2 and 3 outperformed Cohort 1.
Conclusion: The test differentiates novices from beginners, competent, and proficient trainees on difficult procedures and overall performance.
AB - Objectives: Reducing preventable deaths because of uncontrolled hemorrhage, tension pneumothorax, and airway loss is a priority. As part of a research initiative comparing different training models, this study evaluated the reliability and validity of a test that assesses combat medic performance during a polytrauma scenario using live animal models.
Methods: Nine procedural checklists and seven global rating scales were piloted with four cohorts of soldiers (n = 94) at two U.S. training sites. Cohorts represented “novice” to “proficient” trainees. Procedure scores and a mean global score were calculated per subject. The intraclass correlation was calculated per procedure, with 0.70 as the threshold for acceptability. An overall difference among cohorts was hypothesized: Cohort 4 (proficient) > Cohort 3 (competent) > Cohort 2 (beginners) > Cohort 1 (novice) trainees. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and analysis of variance. Results: At Site A, intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 74% to 93% for 6 of 9 procedures. Cohorts differed significantly on hemorrhage control, needle decompression, cricothyrotomy, amputation management, chest tube insertion, and mean global scores. Cohort 4 outperformed the others, and Cohorts 2 and 3 outperformed Cohort 1.
Conclusion: The test differentiates novices from beginners, competent, and proficient trainees on difficult procedures and overall performance.
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=novaseuniv&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:000340806000008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL
U2 - 10.7205/milmed-d-13-00247
DO - 10.7205/milmed-d-13-00247
M3 - Article
C2 - 24402984
SN - 0026-4075
VL - 179
SP - 42
EP - 48
JO - Military Medicine
JF - Military Medicine
IS - 1
ER -