Skip to main content
Log in

Critiquing operative fracture fixation: the development of an assessment tool

  • Original Article • GENERAL ORTHPAEDICS - TRAUMA
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Assessments are fundamentally important for training surgeons. Currently, there are no formal means of assessing operative fracture fixation. An assessment tool has been developed which can be used by trainers to critique the quality of a trainee’s operative fracture fixation. The tool is based on the AO principles of fracture management. The reliability and validity of the assessment were tested in a prospective study.

Methods

The assessment tool comprises of 4 domains focusing on the different factors pertinent to fracture fixation (reduction, stability, implant and overall impression). Reliability and validity were evaluated by asking 10 consultant trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to score 20 test cases on two different occasions at least 7 weeks apart. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. Inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability were assessed by the inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and content validity by the content validity ratio (CVR).

Results

Cronbach’s alpha was 0.976, with all component criteria correlating well with each other. Total score inter-rater reliability, for a single assessor, as given by the ICC, was 0.708. Overall test–retest reliability was 0.961. The CVR for the assessment tool was 0.65 (which is above the critical value for establishing validity with 10 assessors).

Conclusions

Internal consistency is demonstrated by the excellent Cronbach’s alpha with substantial single assessor and excellent test–retest reliability also shown. The CVR above the critical value illustrates that the assessment is valid. The assessment tool has a number of applications within training and service evaluation that could benefit the global orthopaedic community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilson T, Sahu A, Johnson D, Turner P (2010) The effect of trainee involvement on procedure and list times: a statistical analysis with discussion of current issues affecting orthopaedic training in UK. Surgeon 8:15–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Halpin G, Halpin G (1982) Experimental investigation of the effects of study and testing on student learning, retention, and ratings of instruction. J Educ Psychol 74:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Newble DI, Jaeger K (1983) The effects of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 17:165–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stillman PL, Haley HL, Regan MB, Philbin MM (1991) Positive effects of a clinical performance assessment program. Acad Med 66:481–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schatzker J (2000) AO philosophy and principles. In: Ruedi TP, Murphy WM (eds) AO principles of fracture management. Thieme, New York, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  6. Survey Monkey. www.surveymonkey.co.uk/. Accessed 1 Nov 2016

  7. Obuchowski NA (2000) Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:603–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Streiner DL (2003) Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 80:99–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28:563–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA (2012) Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 45:197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Sven Young, Tim Nunn, Jes Bates, Henry Wynn Jones, Rick Gardner, Wilfred Addo, Peter Kenyon, Linda Chokotho, Edward Wood and Nicholas Lubega for generously giving their time to assess the test cases. We would also like to thank Paul Chidothi for his help in providing the radiographs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. H. Hawkes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

David H. Hawkes and William J. Harrison declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hawkes, D.H., Harrison, W.J. Critiquing operative fracture fixation: the development of an assessment tool. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27, 1083–1088 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1943-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1943-7

Keywords

Navigation