SpringerLink
Log in

An argument-based validation study of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) program

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Fundamentals of Laparoscopy Surgery (FLS) program was launched over 15 years ago. Since then, there has been an exponential rise in advancements of laparoscopy and its uses. In response, we conducted an argument-based validation study of FLS. The purpose of this paper is to exemplify this approach to validation for surgical education researchers using FLS as an illustrative case.

Methods

The argument-based approach to validation involves three key actions: (1) develo** interpretation and use arguments; (2) research; and (3) building a validity argument. Drawing from the validation study of FLS each step is exemplified.

Results

Qualitative and quantitative data sources from the FLS validity examination study provided evidence that both supported claims, but also generated backing for rebuttals. Some of the key findings were synthesized in a validity argument to illustrate its structure.

Discussion

The argument-based validation approach described numerous advantages over other validation approaches: (1) it is endorsed by the foundational documents in assessment and evaluation research; (2) its specific language of claims, inferences, warrants, assumptions and rebuttals provides a systematic and unified way to communicate both the processes and outcomes of validation; and (3) the use of logic reasoning in building the validity document clearly delineates the relationship between evidence and the inferences made to support desired uses and interpretations from assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dauster B, Steinberg AP, Vassiliou MC, Bergman S, Stanbridge DD, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2005) Validity of the MISTELS simulator for laparoscopy training in urology. J Endourol 19:541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175:482–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–525

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Pitzul KB, Grantcharov TP, Okrainec A (2012) Validation of three virtual reality Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) modules. Stud Health Technol Inform 173:349–355

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, Hoffman K, the SAGES FLS Committee, (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Fried GM (2010) FLS and FES: comprehensive models of training and assessment. Surg Clin N Am 90:535–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2010.02.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frey BB (ed) (2018) The Sage encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cronbach LJ (1971) Test validation. In Thorndike R (ed) Educational measurement, 2nd ed. American Council on Education, Washington DC

  9. Bachman LF (2005) Building and supporting a case for test use. Lang Assess Q 2(1):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapelle CA (2020) Argument-based validation in testing and assessment. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  11. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.) (2014) Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA, Washington, DC

  12. St-Onge C, Young M, Eva KW, Hodges B (2017) Validity: one word with a plurality of meanings. Adv Health Sci Educ 22(4):853–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dauster B, Steinberg AP, Vassiliou MC, Bergman S, Stanbridge DD, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2005) Validity of the MISTELS simulator for laparoscopy training in urology. J Endourol 19(5):541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KK, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Content and face validity of a comprehensive robotic skills training program for general surgery, urology, and gynecology. Am J Surg 203(4):535–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zheng B, Hur HC, Johnson S, Swanström LL (2010) Validity of using Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program to assess laparoscopic competence for gynecologists. Surg Endosc 24(1):152–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kane MT (1992) An argument-based approach to validity. Psychol Bull 112:527–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kane MT (2006) Validation. In: Brennan RL (ed) Educational measurement, 4th ed, pp 17–64. American Council on Education, Praeger, Westport

  18. Kane M (2013) The argument-based approach to validation. Sch Psychol Rev 42(4):448–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brunt LM (2014) Celebrating a decade of innovation in surgical education. Bull Am Coll Surg 99(11):10–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Fayez R, Fried G (2010) Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room – a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg 199:115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bilgic E, Kaneva P, Okrainec A, Ritter EM, Schwaitzberg SD, Vassiliou MC (2018) Trends in the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery® (FLS) certification exam over the past 9 years. Surg Endosc 32(4):2101–2105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bachman LF (2009) Generalizability and research use arguments. In: Generalizing from educational research Jan 26, pp 137–158. Routledge

  23. Toulmin SE (2003) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Chapelle CA, Lee HW (2021) Conceptions of validity. In: The Routledge handbook of language testing Dec 15, pp 17–31. Routledge

  25. Spolsky B (1981) Some ethical questions about language testing. In: Klein-Braley C, Stevenson DK (eds) Practice and problems in language testing. Peter D. Lang Frankfurt, Germany, pp 5–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by a grant by the Society of the American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences Education, McGill University, Lady Meredith House, 1110 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A3, Canada

    Maryam Wagner & Carlos Gomez-Garibello

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate, Worcester, USA

    Neal Seymour

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Allan Okrainec

  4. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Melina Vassiliou

Authors
  1. Maryam Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos Gomez-Garibello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neal Seymour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allan Okrainec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Melina Vassiliou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Wagner.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Allan Okrainec has received honoraria for speaking and teaching with Medtronic and Ethicon. Maryam Wagner, Carlos Gomez-Garibello, Neal Seymour and Melina Vassiliou have no relevant conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagner, M., Gomez-Garibello, C., Seymour, N. et al. An argument-based validation study of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) program. Surg Endosc 37, 5351–5357 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10020-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10020-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation