Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Resuscitation. 2012 Jul;83(7):879-86. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.12.012. Epub 2011 Dec 23.

The Simulation Team Assessment Tool (STAT): development, reliability and validation.

Author information

1
Emergency Services, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA, 98105, United States. Jennifer.reid@seattlechildrens.org

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Simulation sessions prepare medical professionals for pediatric emergencies. No validated tools exist to evaluate overall team performance. Our objective was to develop and evaluate the inter-rater reliability and validity of a team performance assessment tool during simulated pediatric resuscitations.

METHODS:

We developed the Simulation Team Assessment Tool (STAT) which evaluated 4 domains: basic assessment skills, airway/breathing, circulation, and human factors. Scoring of each element was behaviorally anchored from 0 to 2 points. Two teams of resuscitation experts and two teams of pediatric residents performed the same simulated pediatric resuscitation. Each team was scored by six raters using the STAT. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Overall performance and domain scores between expert and resident teams were compared using repeated measures of analysis of variance to assess construct validity.

RESULTS:

ICCs for overall performance were 0.81. Domain ICCs were: basic skills 0.73, airway/breathing skills 0.30, circulation skills 0.76, human factors 0.68. Expert versus resident average scores were: overall performance 84% vs. 66% (p=0.02), basic skills 73% vs. 55% (p<0.01); airway 80% vs. 75% (p=0.25), circulation 90% vs. 69% (p=0.02), human factors 89% vs. 66% (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS:

The STAT's overall performance, basic skills, circulation, and human factors domains had good to excellent inter-rater reliability, discriminating well between expert and resident teams. Similar performance in the airway/breathing domain among all teams magnified the impact of a small number of rater disagreements on the ICC. Additional study is needed to better assess the airway/breathing domain.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center