Self-reported versus observed scores in laparoscopic skills training

Education in basic laparoscopic skills training is performed ideally in an inanimate laboratory. Monitoring of basic skills progression, which is essential during this tranining, often may be difficult because of the resources and manpower. This study investigated the differences between self-reported and observed scores during basic laparoscopic exercises.

First-and second-year medical students involved in practice sessions using the LTS 2000 box trainer were included in the study. All the students were allowed to practice four tasks: placing pegs with their dominant and nondominant hands, transferring pegs from one hand to another starting with the dominant and nondominant hands, cannulating a pipe cleaner into a plastic tube, and progressing from one end of a rope to the other. Each student recorded his or her times and errors for each task. After these practice sessions, each student underwent an observed session (OS), performing all of the tasks, and was graded by a surgeon involved in laparoscopic education. All the students were asked to record another practice session. The self-reported performances from the session immediately before the OS (pre-OS) and the session immediately after the OS (post-OS) were compared with the performance in the OS.

A total of 36 students were included in this study. The mean time and mean error were similar between all the sessions. Although the scores in the OS did slightly differ from the scores in the pre-OS and post-OS, post hoc analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the OS score and either the pre-OS or the post-OS score for any of the laparoscopic exercises.

No differences between observed scores and self-reported scores were noted. The use of self-reported scores may be a good method for monitoring performance during training in laparoscopic basic skills. The self-reporting of basic laparoscopic exercises may conserve resources.