Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 24, 2026

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum
Published on: May 20, 2018
Validity and reliability assessment of detailed scoring checklists for use during perioperative emergency simulation
Matthew D McEvoy1, William R Hand, Cory M Furse
1From the Department of Anesthesiology (M.D.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Departments of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine (W.R.H., C.M.F., L.C.F., C.A.C.), and Public Health Sciences (P.J.N.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; Department of Anesthesiology (V.K.M.), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; and Section of Critical Care Medicine (M.F.O.) Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care (M.E.N.), University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Introduction:
Few valid and reliable grading checklists have been published for the evaluation of performance during simulated high-stakes perioperative event management. As such, the purposes of this study were to construct valid scoring checklists for a variety of perioperative emergencies and to determine the reliability of scores produced by these checklists during continuous video review.
Methods:
A group of anesthesiologists, intensivists, and educators created a set of simulation grading checklists for the assessment of the following scenarios: severe anaphylaxis, cerebrovascular accident, hyperkalemic arrest, malignant hyperthermia, and acute coronary syndrome. Checklist items were coded as critical or noncritical. Nonexpert raters evaluated 10 simulation videos in a random order, with each video being graded 4 times. A group of faculty experts also graded the videos to create a reference standard to which nonexpert ratings were compared. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results:
Team leaders in the simulation videos were scored by the expert panel as having performed 56.5% of all items on the checklist (range, 43.8%-84.0%), and 67.2% of the critical items (range, 30.0%-100%). Nonexpert raters agreed with the expert assessment 89.6% of the time (95% confidence interval, 87.2%-91.6%). No learning curve development was found with repetitive video assessment or checklist use. The κ values comparing nonexpert rater assessments to the reference standard averaged 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.81).
Conclusions:
The findings indicate that the grading checklists described are valid, are reliable, and could be used in perioperative crisis management assessment.
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of Respiration
Subjective Assessment: Nurses interview the patient to gather information directly during the subjective assessment. It includes questions about the individual's medical history, medications, and symptoms, focusing on past respiratory conditions like...
Assessment of Airway, Skin Color, and Use of Accessory Muscles
Introduction
The initial evaluation of a patient's respiratory system...

