loading page

Comparative validity of three simulation platforms for objective assessment of otoscopy skills
  • +1
  • Oloruntobi Rotimi,
  • Isobel Dodds,
  • Adam Haymes,
  • Prof Mahmood Bhutta
Oloruntobi Rotimi
Royal Sussex County Hospital

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Isobel Dodds
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
Author Profile
Adam Haymes
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
Author Profile
Prof Mahmood Bhutta
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
Author Profile


Introduction Otoscopy is a key clinical skill which following the introduction of the Medical Licensing Assessment all newly qualified doctors in the United Kingdom will be required to be able to perform independently. At present there is no consensus on a standardised method for objectively assessing otoscopy skills. Methods Prospective mixed methods study comparing face, content and construct validity of three different platforms for otoscopy skills assessment, using a traditional otoscope with manikin, digital otoscope (Tympahealth) with manikin, and traditional otoscope with a low-cost model ear (SimEar). Skills were assessed using a standardised mark scheme, and five expert assessors and twelve participants who rotated through three Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) stations representing each model. Assessors numerically ranked validity of each model, and participated in a semi-structured interview of opinion. Results Each platform differed in face, construct and content validity scores, with no one platform consistently outperforming others. Three main themes were identified during thematic analysis of expert assessor interviews: ability to assess what is seen, anatomical reality, and ease of use. The low-cost model showed greatest potential, where modification to include a silicone ear could lead to high validity with marginal increase in cost. Conclusion Several modalities for assessing otoscopy skills exist, each with advantages and disadvantages. Modifications to a low-cost model, for use with either a traditional or digital otoscope, could prove to be the best model.
09 Mar 2022Submitted to Clinical Otolaryngology
15 Mar 2022Submission Checks Completed
15 Mar 2022Assigned to Editor
20 Mar 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 Jun 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
26 Jun 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Major
19 Aug 20221st Revision Received
25 Aug 2022Submission Checks Completed
25 Aug 2022Assigned to Editor
11 Sep 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
22 Nov 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
27 Nov 2022Editorial Decision: Accept