@article{10.22454/FamMed.2025.615731,
author = {Ludden-­Schlatter, Alicia and Bunt, Stephanie and Hanrahan, Kate DuChene},
title = {Development and Validation of a Shave Biopsy Training Checklist},
journal = {Family Medicine},
volume = {0},
number = {0},
year = {1},
month = {1},
doi = {10.22454/FamMed.2025.615731},
abstract = {Background and Objectives:  Residencies train residents in procedures and assess their competency, but existing assessment tools have demonstrated poor reliability and have not been validated.
Methods:  This mixed-methods study validated a shave biopsy checklist with family medicine and dermatology faculty at two academic centers. In each phase of the study, teaching faculty scored a video-recorded simulated procedure using the checklist, and investigators assessed content validity, interrater reliability, and accuracy.
Results:  In focus groups of nine family medicine and dermatology faculty, 16 of 18 checklist items met or surpassed 80% interrater reliability. Overall checklist reliability was 74%. Focus group surveys initially revealed insufficient content validity. Lowest performing items were removed, and then the follow-up content validity index (0.76) surpassed the required threshold (0.62). Twenty-one of 70 family medicine faculty completed a final survey, which showed a content validity index of 0.63, surpassing the required threshold of 0.42. Twelve of 70 family medicine faculty viewed and scored a simulated video-recorded procedure. Overall interrater reliability was 91% (Cohen’s d=1.36). Fourteen of 16 checklist items demonstrated greater than or equal to 90% interrater reliability. Accuracy analysis revealed 67.9% correct responses in focus groups and 84.9% in final testing (simple t test, P<.001, Cohen’s d=1.4).
Conclusions:  This rigorously validated checklist demonstrates appropriate content validity, interrater reliability, and accuracy. Findings support use of this shave biopsy checklist as an objective mastery standard for medical education and as a tool for formative assessment of procedural competency.},
URL = {https://journals.stfm.org//familymedicine/online-first/ludden-schlatter-0262/},
eprint = {https://journals.stfm.org//media/c00ib1zs/luddenschlatter20240262docx-2025-02-05-18-00.pdf},
}