Copenhagen 2016 Registration Programme Exhibitor Information Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Glaucoma Day 2016 Hotel Star Alliance
title

10 - 14 Sept. 2016, Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

This Meeting has been awarded 27 CME credits

 

escrs app advert yo advert

Validation of the EyeSi indirect ophthalmoscope simulator as a learning tool

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Presented Poster Session: Training and Innovation in Education/Quality of Vision Evaluation

Session Date/Time: Monday 12/09/2016 | 09:30-11:00

Paper Time: 10:30

Venue: Poster Village: Pod 3

First Author: : J.Chou USA

Co Author(s): :    T. Kosowsky   A. Payal   L. Gonzalez   M. Daly     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

The use of the indirect ophthalmoscope is one of the most challenging exams to a novice ophthalmology or optometry trainees. The EyeSi indirect ophthalmoscope (IO) simulator is an educational tool to assist in the training. Prior studies have shown its effectiveness in improving this skill, but a validation study of this technology is yet to be seen. In this study, we evaluate the construct and face validity of the EyeSi IO simulator as a tool to improve this skill for beginning trainees.

Setting:

A prospective validity study of a three-dimensional virtual reality indirect ophthalmoscopy simulator in a tertiary medical center.

Methods:

We compared the performance of medical students (Group A) with that of ophthalmology and optometry trainees (Group B) to study the simulator’s accuracy in differentiating levels of expertise. Participants in Groups A (N=22) and B (N=11), all naïve to the simulator experience, viewed an online orientation module followed by a demonstration case. Each participant completed six cases progressively increasing in difficulty over four levels in a single session. Outcomes included, but were not limited to, total examination time and total score. Each participant also completed a 10-question face validity questionnaire (FVQ).

Results:

Group B achieved significantly better overall scores than Group A on all but the first difficulty level (P=.07, P=.007, P=.01, P=.001, for levels one to four respectively) and had a significantly better combined score across all levels (74.4% vs. 86.1%; P=.002). Trainees examined the simulated eye significantly faster than medical students (P<.0001). Medical students reported higher scores in the FVQ for the simulator experience being helpful at orienting them to true IO, that further training on the simulator would improve their skills in the clinic, and that having an instructor present during orientation was helpful (P=.03 for all).

Conclusions:

This study provides construct and face validity of the EyeSi IO simulator and shows it as a useful tool for novice users as well as great promise in the education of future junior ophthalmology and optometry trainees.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to previous