Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Jul 29:6:93-100.
doi: 10.5116/ijme.55a2.218b.

Individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopic training:a mixed methods study

Liv Ahlborg  1 , Maria Weurlander  2 , Leif Hedman  1 , Henry Nisel  1 , Pelle G Lindqvist  1 , Li Felländer-Tsai  1 , Lars Enochsson  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopic training:a mixed methods study

Liv Ahlborg et al. Int J Med Educ. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to explore the value of individualized feedback on performance, flow and self-efficacy during simulated laparoscopy. Furthermore, we wished to explore attitudes towards feedback and simulator training among medical students.

Methods: Sixteen medical students were included in the study and randomized to laparoscopic simulator training with or without feedback. A teacher provided individualized feedback continuously throughout the procedures to the target group. Validated questionnaires and scales were used to evaluate self-efficacy and flow. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences between groups regarding laparoscopic performance (instrument path length), self-efficacy and flow. Qualitative data was collected by group interviews and interpreted using inductive thematic analyses.

Results: Sixteen students completed the simulator training and questionnaires. Instrument path length was shorter in the feedback group (median 3.9 m; IQR: 3.3-4.9) as compared to the control group (median 5.9 m; IQR: 5.0-8.1), p<0.05. Self-efficacy improved in both groups. Eleven students participated in the focus interviews. Participants in the control group expressed that they had fun, whereas participants in the feedback group were more concentrated on the task and also more anxious. Both groups had high ambitions to succeed and also expressed the importance of getting feedback. The authenticity of the training scenario was important for the learning process.

Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopy training. The next step is to further optimize feedback and to transfer standardized and individualized feedback from the simulated setting to the operating room.

Keywords: Feedback; flow; laparoscopic simulator training; self-efficacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Simulator performance comparing groups. *p<0.05.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Self-efficacy score before and after simulator training. *p <0.05.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Self-efficacy score, item 3; "I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", comparing males and females before and after training. *p <0.05.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Grantcharov TP, Reznick RK. Teaching procedural skills. BMJ. 2008;336:1129–1131. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39517.686956.47. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Biggs J. What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Journal of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia. 1999;18(1):57-75.
    1. Cameron JL. William Stewart Halsted. Annals of Surgery. 1997;225:445–458. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199705000-00002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scott DJ, Dunnington GL. The New ACS/APDS Skills Curriculum: Moving the Learning Curve Out of the Operating Room. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:213–221. doi: 10.1007/s11605-007-0357-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wakefield M. To err is human: An Institute of Medicine report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2000;31:243–244. doi: 10.1037/h0092814. - DOI

Publication types