Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation: virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) training on simulators has demonstrated transferability to actual operations, but no comparative data exist. The objective of this study was to compare the construct and face validity, as well as workload, of two previously validated virtual reality (VR) and videotrainer (VT) systems.

Methods

Attendees (n = 90) of the SAGES 2005 Learning Center performed two repetitions on both VR (EndoTower™) and VT (Tulane Trainer) LCN systems using 30° laparoscopes and completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, simulator characteristics, and task workload. Construct validity was determined by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience according to five parameters and face validity according to eight. The validated NASA-TLX questionnaire that rates the mental, physical, and temporal demand of a task as well as the performance, effort, and frustration of the subject was used for workload measurement.

Results

Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulators according to the number of basic laparoscopic cases (p = 0.005), number of advanced cases (p < 0.001), and frequency of angled scope use (p < 0.001), and only for VT according to training level (p < 0.001) and fellowship training (p = 0.008). Face validity ratings on a 1-20 scale averaged 15.4 ± 3 for VR vs. 16 ± 2.6 for VT (p = 0.04). Ninety-six percent of participants rated both simulators as valid educational tools. The NASA-TLX overall workload score was 69.5 ± 24 for VR vs. 68.8 ± 20.5 for VT (p = 0.31).

Conclusions

This is the largest study to date that compares two validated LCN simulators. While subtle differences exist, both VR and VT simulators demonstrated excellent construct validity, good face validity, and acceptable workload parameters. These systems thus represent useful training devices and should be widely used to improve surgical performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79: S70–S81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ganai S, Seymour NE (2005) VR to OR for Camera Navigation. In: Westwood JD, et al. (eds), Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 13, vol 111, IOC press, Amsterdam, pp 45–48

  3. Haluck RS, Gallagher AG, Satava RM, Webster R, Bass TL, Miller CA (2002) Reliability and validity of Endotower, a virtual reality trainer for angled endoscope navigation. Stud Health Technol Inform 85: 179–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haluck RS, Webster RW, Snyder AJ, Melkonian MG, Mohler BJ, Dise ML, Lefever A (2001) A virtual reality surgical trainer for navigation in laparoscopic surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 81: 171–176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of a multi-dimensional workload rating scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds), Human Mental Workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183

  6. Korndorffer JR Jr, Stefanidis D, Sierra R, Clayton JL, et al. (2005) Validity and reliability of a videotrainer laparoscopic camera navigation simulator. Surg Endosc 19 (Suppl): S246

    Google Scholar 

  7. Korndorffer JR Jr, Hayes DJ, Dunne JB, Sierra R, Touchard CL, Markert RJ, Scott DJ (2005) Development and transferability of a cost-effective laparoscopic camera navigation simulator. Surg Endosc 19: 161–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maithel S, Sierra R, Korndorffer J, Neumann P, Dawson S, Callery M, Jones D, Scott D (2006) Construct and face validity of MIST-VR, Endotower, and CELTS: are we ready for skills assessment using simulators? Surg Endosc 20: 104–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Donnell RD, Eggemeier FT (1986) Workload assessment methodology. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds), Handbook of perception and performance, vol. 2: Cognitive processes and performance. Wiley, New York, pp 42.1–42.49

    Google Scholar 

  10. Perkins N, Starkes JL, Lee TD, Hutchison C (2002) Learning to use minimal access surgical instruments and 2-dimensional remote visual feedback: how difficult is the task for novices? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 7: 117–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, Foffman K, SAGES FLS Committee (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135: 21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott DJ, Jones DB (2005) Virtual reality training and teaching tools. In: Soper NJ, Swanstrom LL, Eubanks WS (eds), Mastery of Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgery, 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 146–160

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8: 71–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Sierra R, Touchard C, Dunne JB, Scott DJ (2005) Skill retention following proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 138: 165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wickens CD, Hollands J (2000) Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge SAGES, Verefi Inc., and Karl Storz Endoscopy for equipment support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery - Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Department of Surgery, Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Randy Haluck, Tai Pham & Timothy Reinke

  3. Tulane Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA

    J. Bruce Dunne, Sarah Markley & James R. Korndorffer Jr.

  4. Texas Endosurgery Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Paul Arellano

  5. Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Daniel B. Jones

  6. Southwestern Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Daniel J. Scott

Authors
  1. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randy Haluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tai Pham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Bruce Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy Reinke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sarah Markley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James R. Korndorffer Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paul Arellano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daniel B. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel J. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Stefanidis.

Additional information

Presented at the SAGES 2006 Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, April 26–29

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stefanidis, D., Haluck, R., Pham, T. et al. Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation: virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center. Surg Endosc 21, 1158–1164 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation