Assessment of surgical performance of laparoscopic benign hiatal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Operative skills correlate with patient outcomes, yet at the completion of training or after learning a new procedure, these skills are rarely formally evaluated. There is interest in the use of summative video assessment of laparoscopic benign foregut and hiatal surgery (LFS). If this is to be used to determine competency, it must meet the robust criteria established for high-stakes assessments. The purpose of this review is to identify tools that have been used to assess performance of LFS and evaluate the available validity evidence for each instrument. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted up to July 2017. Eligible studies reported data on tools used to assess performance in the operating room during LFS. Two independent reviewers considered 1084 citations for eligibility. The characteristics and testing conditions of each assessment tool were recorded. Validity evidence was evaluated using five sources of validity (content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequences). RESULTS: There were six separate tools identified. Two tools were generic to laparoscopy, and four were specific to LFS [two specific to Nissen fundoplication (NF), one heller myotomy (HM), and one paraesophageal hernia repair (PEH)]. Overall, only one assessment was supported by moderate evidence while the others had limited or unknown evidence. Validity evidence was based mainly on internal structure (all tools reporting reliability and item analysis) and content (two studies referencing previous papers for tool development in the context of clinical assessment, and four listing items without specifying the development procedures). There was little or no evidence supporting test response process (one study reporting rater training), relationship to other variables (two comparing scores in subjects with different clinical experience), and consequences (no studies). Two tools were identified to have evidence for video assessment, specific to NF. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence supporting the validity of assessment tools for laparoscopic foregut surgery. This precludes their use for summative video-based assessment to verify competency. Further research is needed to develop an assessment tool designed for this purpose.

A scoping review of assessment tools for laparoscopic suturing.

BACKGROUND: A needs assessment identified a gap in teaching and assessment of laparoscopic suturing (LS) skills. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools that were used to assess LS skills, to evaluate validity evidence available, and to provide guidance for selecting the right assessment tool for specific assessment conditions. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched till April 2017. Full-text articles were included if they reported on assessment tools used in the operating room/simulation to (1) assess procedures that require LS or (2) specifically assess LS skills. RESULTS: Forty-two tools were identified, of which 26 were used for assessing LS skills specifically and 26 for procedures that require LS. Tools had the most evidence in internal structure and relationship to other variables, and least in consequences. CONCLUSION: Through identification and evaluation of assessment tools, the results of this review could be used as a guideline when implementing assessment tools into training programs.

Development of a Model for the Acquisition and Assessment of Advanced Laparoscopic Suturing Skills Using an Automated Device.

BACKGROUND: Needs assessment identified a gap regarding laparoscopic suturing skills targeted in simulation. This study collected validity evidence for an advanced laparoscopic suturing task using an Endo StitchTM device. METHODS: Experienced (ES) and novice surgeons (NS) performed continuous suturing after watching an instructional video. Scores were based on time and accuracy, and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgery. Data are shown as medians [25th-75th percentiles] (ES vs NS). Interrater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval). RESULTS: Seventeen participants were enrolled. Experienced surgeons had significantly greater task (980 [964-999] vs 666 [391-711], P = .0035) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgery scores (25 [24-25] vs 14 [12-17], P = .0029). Interrater reliability for time and accuracy were 1.0 and 0.9 (0.74-0.96), respectively. All experienced surgeons agreed that the task was relevant to practice. CONCLUSION: This study provides validity evidence for the task as a measure of laparoscopic suturing skill using an automated suturing device. It could help trainees acquire the skills they need to better prepare for clinical learning.

Trends in the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery® (FLS) certification exam over the past 9 years.

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery® (FLS) certification exam assesses both cognitive and manual skills, and has been administered for over a decade. The purpose of this study is to report results over the past 9 years of testing in order to identify trends over time and evaluate the need to update scoring practices. This is a quality initiative of the SAGES FLS committee. METHODS: A representative sample of FLS exam data from 2008 to 2016 was analyzed. The de-identified data included demographics and scores for the cognitive and manual tests. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare trends over the years, training levels, and to assess the pass/fail rate. RESULTS: A total of 7232 FLS tests were analyzed [64% male, 6.4% junior (postgraduate year-PGY1-2), 84% senior (PGY3-5), 2.8% fellows (PGY6), and 6.7% attending surgeons (PGY7)]. Specialties included 93% general surgery (GS), 6.2% gynecology, and 0.9% urology. The Pearson correlation between cognitive and manual scores was 0.09. For the cognitive exam, there was an increase in scores over the years, and the most junior residents scored the lowest. For the manual skills, there were marginal differences in scores over the years, and junior residents scored the highest. The odds ratio of PGY3+ passing was 1.8 (CI 1.2-2.8) times higher than that of a PGY1-2. The internal consistency between tasks on the manual skills exam was 0.73. If any one of the tasks was removed, the Cronbach's alpha dropped to between 0.65 and 0.71, depending on the task being removed. CONCLUSION: The cognitive and manual components of FLS test different aspects of laparoscopy and demonstrate evidence for reliability and validity. More experienced trainees have a higher likelihood of passing the exam and tend to perform better on the cognitive skills. Each component of the manual skills contributes to the exam and should continue to be part of the test.

Psychometric properties of the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) using item response theory.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which each item assessed using the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) contributes to the total score remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of difficulty and discriminative ability of each of the 5 GOALS items using item response theory (IRT). METHODS: A total of 396 GOALS assessments for a variety of laparoscopic procedures over a 12-year time period were included. Threshold parameters of item difficulty and discrimination power were estimated for each item using IRT. RESULTS: The higher slope parameters seen with "bimanual dexterity" and "efficiency" are indicative of greater discriminative ability than "depth perception", "tissue handling", and "autonomy". CONCLUSIONS: IRT psychometric analysis indicates that the 5 GOALS items do not demonstrate uniform difficulty and discriminative power, suggesting that they should not be scored equally. "Bimanual dexterity" and "efficiency" seem to have stronger discrimination. Weighted scores based on these findings could improve the accuracy of assessing individual laparoscopic skills.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken: a survey of preparedness for practice among graduates of Fellowship Council-accredited fellowships.

BACKGROUND: General surgery residency may not adequately prepare residents for independent practice. It is unclear; however, if non-ACGME-accredited fellowships are better meeting training needs. The purpose of this mixed-method study was to determine perceived preparedness for practice and to identify gaps in fellowship training. METHODS: A survey was developed using an iterative qualitative methodology based on interviews and focus groups of graduated fellows and program directors. Five central themes emerged and were used as a framework: professional development, job marketability, autonomy, networking, and practice management. The survey was then circulated by email to fellows who graduated from Fellowship Council (FC)-accredited programs within the past 3 years. RESULTS: Of 201 respondents (response rate = 41 %), 95 and 97 % were highly satisfied with their operative and non-operative experiences; 83 % acquired jobs aligned with their skills and expectations, while 17 % sought additional training after fellowship. Respondents who intended to learn a given procedure felt competent after fellowship to perform 51(85 %) of the 60 procedures listed. They would have liked more experience in advanced therapeutic endoscopy, complex and revisional bariatric surgery, and uncommon laparoscopic procedures such as esophagectomy, adrenalectomy, and common bile duct exploration. Thirty-one percent expressed the desire for more autonomy in the management of complications. Educational gaps existed mostly in areas of coding and billing (42 %), hiring administrative staff (42 %), and managing insurance issues (34 %). CONCLUSIONS: FC-accredited fellowships seem to adequately prepare surgeons for independent practice and bridge training gaps after residency. Graduates are highly satisfied with the individualized training experience and acquire desired jobs aligned with their career goals.

Measuring intra-operative decision-making during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validity evidence for a novel interactive Web-based assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: Errors in judgment during laparoscopic cholecystectomy can lead to bile duct injuries and other complications. Despite correlations between outcomes, expertise and advanced cognitive skills, current methods to evaluate these skills remain subjective, rater- and situation-dependent and non-systematic. The purpose of this study was to develop objective metrics using a Web-based platform and to obtain validity evidence for their assessment of decision-making during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: An interactive online learning platform was developed ( www.thinklikeasurgeon.com ). Trainees and surgeons from six institutions completed a 12-item assessment, developed based on a cognitive task analysis. Five items required subjects to draw their answer on the surgical field, and accuracy scores were calculated based on an algorithm derived from experts' responses ("visual concordance test", VCT). Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and correlation with self-reported experience, Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) score and Objective Performance Rating Scale (OPRS) score were calculated. Questionnaires were administered to evaluate the platform's usability, feasibility and educational value. RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects (17 surgeons, 22 trainees) participated. There was high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95; n = 10) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.87). The assessment demonstrated significant differences between novices, intermediates and experts in total score (p < 0.01) and VCT score (p < 0.01). There was high correlation between total case number and total score (ρ = 0.83, p < 0.01) and between total case number and VCT (ρ = 0.82, p < 0.01), and moderate to high correlations between total score and GOALS (ρ = 0.66, p = 0.05), VCT and GOALS (ρ = 0.83, p < 0.01), total score and OPRS (ρ = 0.67, p = 0.04), and VCT and OPRS (ρ = 0.78, p = 0.01). Most subjects agreed or strongly agreed that the platform and assessment was easy to use [n = 29 (78 %)], facilitates learning intra-operative decision-making [n = 28 (81 %)], and should be integrated into surgical training [n = 28 (76 %)]. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary validity evidence for a novel interactive platform to objectively assess decision-making during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Description and Preliminary Evaluation of a Low-Cost Simulator for Training and Evaluation of Flexible Endoscopic Skills.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons developed the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) to test the knowledge and skills required to perform flexible endoscopy. The program includes online didactic material to complement the written component, but does not have a practice component for the skills portion. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test low-cost models to train for the hands-on component of the FES examination. METHODS: Based on the deconstructed skills tested in FES, a low-cost simulator and metrics that model retroflexion, instrumentation and targeting, loop reduction, and mucosal evaluation were developed. The model is reuseable and requires a real endoscope and tower. Validity evidence was obtained by comparing performance between novice endoscopists (NEs) and experienced endoscopists (EEs). RESULTS: Six NEs and 6 EEs participated. In retroflexion, EEs and NEs scored (median [interquartile range]) 72.9 (67.1; 78.6) and 37.9 (25.7; 50.0; P = .004), respectively. In targeting, EEs scored 102.0 (75.0; 110.0) and NEs scored 50.0 (25.0; 50.0; P = .089). In navigation and loop reduction, EEs scored 189.0 (108.0; 267.0) and NEs scored 0.0 (0.0; 0.0; P = .004). In mucosal evaluation, EEs scored 133.3 (103.3; 150.0) and NEs scored 66.7 (50.0; 103.3; P = .015). The median global scores were 116.6 (109.6; 135.8) for EEs and 39.1 (29.1; 40.6; P = .004) for NEs. CONCLUSION: This pilot study provides preliminary validity evidence to support using these tasks to measure basic flexible endoscopic skills. Subsequent studies will examine the implementation of a proficiency curriculum using this model and its value as a training tool for flexible endoscopy, or to prepare for the FES exam.

Reliable assessment of operative performance.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the number of intraoperative assessments required to reliably measure trainee performance. This study used generalizability theory (GT) to describe factors contributing to score variance and to estimate the number of assessments needed to achieve high standards of reliability. METHODS: While performing laparoscopic procedures, trainees were assessed by the attending surgeon using Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS). Data were collected prospectively (2-month intervals), assessing each trainee multiple times. Reliability coefficient was calculated using trainees, cases, and raters as factors. RESULTS: Eighteen trainees were included for a total of 65 assessments. Total variance in scores was accounted for as follows: 66.1% by trainees, 31.6% by the interaction between trainees and cases, and 2.3% by raters. At least 3 cases are required for reliable scores using GOALS. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees accounted for most of the variance in GOALS scores with a minimum of 3 cases required to improve the reliability of the scores obtained. These data may guide the implementation of performance assessments in surgical training programs.

Validity evidence for a new portable, lower-cost platform for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery skills test.

BACKGROUND: The fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) examination measures the knowledge and skills required to perform safe flexible endoscopy. A potential limitation of the FES skills test is the size and cost of the simulator on which it was developed (GI Mentor II virtual reality endoscopy simulator; Simbionix LTD, Israel). A more compact and lower-cost alternative (GI Mentor Express) was developed to address this issue. The purpose of this study was to obtain evidence for the validity of scores obtained on the Express platform, so that it can be used for testing. STUDY DESIGN: General surgery residents at various levels of training and practicing endoscopists at five institutions participated. Each completed the five FES tasks on both simulator platforms in random order, with 3-14 days between tests. Scores were calculated using the same standardized computer-generated algorithm and compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: There were 58 participants (mean age 32; 76% male) with a broad range of endoscopic experience. The mean (95% confidence interval) FES scores were 72 (67:77) on the GI Mentor II and 66 (60:71) on the Express. The correlation between scores on the two platforms was 0.86 (0.77:0.91; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is a high correlation between FES manual skills scores measured on the original platform and the new Express, providing evidence to support the use of the GI Mentor Express for FES testing.

A systematic review of performance assessment tools for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple tools are available to assess clinical performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but there are no guidelines on how best to implement and interpret them in educational settings. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically appraise LC assessment tools and their measurement properties, in order to make recommendations for their implementation in surgical training. METHODS: A systematic search (1989-2013) was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and grey literature sources. Evidence for validity (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) and the conditions in which the evidence was obtained were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 54 articles were included for qualitative synthesis. Fifteen technical skills and two non-technical skills assessment tools were identified. The 17 tools were used for either: recorded procedures (nine tools, 60%), direct observation (five tools, 30%), or both (three tools, 18%). Fourteen (82%) tools reported inter-rater reliability and one reported a Generalizability Theory coefficient. Nine (53%) had evidence for validity based on clinical experience and 11 (65%) compared scores to other assessments. Consequences of scores, educational impact, applications to residency training, and how raters were trained were not clearly reported. No studies mentioned cost. CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly reported validity evidence was inter-rater reliability and relationships to other known variables. Consequences of assessments and rater training were not clearly reported. These data and the evidence for validity should be taken into consideration when deciding how to select and implement a tool to assess performance of LC, and especially how to interpret the results.

Initial assessment of patient handoff in accredited general surgery residency programs in the United States and Canada: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Communication errors are considered one of the major causes of sentinel events. Our aim was to assess the process of patient handoff among junior surgical residents and to determine ways in which to improve the handoff process. METHODS: We conducted nationwide surveys that included all accredited general surgery residency programs in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: Of the 244 American and 17 Canadian accredited surgical residency programs contacted, 65 (27%) and 12 (71%), respectively, participated in the survey. Of the American and Canadian respondents, 66% and 69%, respectively, were from postgraduate year (PGY) 1, and 32% and 29%, respectively, were from PGY 2; 85 (77%) and 50 (96%), respectively, had not received any training about patient handoff before their surgical residency, and 27% and 64%, respectively, reported that the existing handoff system at their institutions did not adequately protect patient safety. Moreover, 29% of American respondents and 37% of Canadian respondents thought that the existing handoffs did not support continuity of patient care. Of the American residents, 67% and 6% reported receiving an incomplete handoff that resulted in minor and major patient harm, respectively. These results mirrored those from Canadian residents (63% minor and 7% major harm). The most frequent factor reported to improve the patient handoff process was standardization of the verbal handoff. CONCLUSION: Our survey results indicate that the current patient handoff system contributes to patient harm. More efforts are needed to establish standardized forms of verbal and written handoff to ensure patient safety and continuity of care.

CONTEXTE: Les erreurs de communication sont considérées comme l'une des causes majeures des événements sentinelles. Notre but était d'évaluer le processus de transfert des patients chez les résidents junior en chirurgie et de trouver des façons de l'améliorer. MÉTHODES: Nous avons procédé à des sondages nationaux qui ont inclus tous les programmes agréés de résidence en chirurgie générale aux États Unis et au Canada. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 244 programmes agréés de résidence en chirurgie américains et les 17 canadiens, 65 (27 %) et 12 (71 %), respectivement, ont participé au sondage. Parmi les participants américains et canadiens, 66 % et 69 %, respectivement, étaient en première année de résidence (PGY 1) et 32 % et 29 %, respectivement, étaient en deuxième année de résidence (PGY 2); 85 (77 %) et 50 (96 %), respectivement, n'avaient reçu aucune formation sur le transfert des patients avant leur résidence en chirurgie et 27 % et 64 %, respectivement, ont déclaré que le système actuel de transfert de leur établissement n'assurait pas adéquatement la sécurité des patients. De plus, 29 % des participants américains et 37 % des participants canadiens ont dit estimer que le mode actuel de transfert ne favorisait pas la continuité des soins. Chez les résidents américains, 67 % et 6 % ont déclaré recevoir un rapport de transfert incomplet susceptible d'entraîner un préjudice mineur et majeur, respectivement, pour le patient. Ces réponses correspondaient à celles des résidents canadiens (63 % et 7 %, respectivement, en ce qui concerne les préjudices mineurs et majeurs). Le facteur mentionné comme le plus propice à une amélioration du processus de transfert des patients était la standardisation du rapport verbal. CONCLUSION: Les résultats de nos sondages indiquent que le système actuel de transfert des patients serait préjudiciable à ces derniers. Il faudra travailler à standardiser les processus de transfert et de rapports verbaux et écrits pour assurer la sécurité des patients et la continuité des soins.

The Development of Assessment Tools for Plastic Surgery Competencies.

BACKGROUND: Objective tools to assess procedural skills in plastic surgery residency training are currently lacking. There is an increasing need to address this deficit in order to meet today's training standards in North America. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this pilot study was to establish a methodology for determining the essential procedural steps for two plastic surgery procedures to assist resident training and assessment. METHODS: Following a literature review and needs assessment of resident training, the authors purposefully selected two procedures lacking robust assessment metrics (breast augmentation and facelift) and used a consensus process to complete a list of procedural steps for each. Using an online survey, plastic surgery Program Directors, Division Chiefs, and the Royal College Specialty Training Committee members in Canada were asked to indicate whether each step was considered essential or non-essential when assessing competence among graduating plastic surgery trainees. The Delphi methodology was used to obtain consensus among the panel. Panelist reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: A total of 17 steps for breast augmentation and 24 steps for facelift were deemed essential by consensus (Cronbach's alpha 0.87 and 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using the aforementioned technique, the essential procedural steps for two plastic surgery procedures were determined. Further work is required to develop assessment instruments based on these steps and to gather validity evidence in support of their use in surgical education.

Objective assessment, selection, and certification in surgery.

Historically, surgical competence has been evaluated subjectively. Fundamental changes in surgical technology and training have focused attention on the use of objective measurement of performance to improve patient safety and reduce errors. Surgical performance can be measured using a variety of tools, both in the clinical and simulated environments. Objective assessments can play a role in training by improving the evaluation and feedback. At the end of training or when a new skill is acquired, objective assessments may be used to ensure that a proficiency level has been reached and potentially as a condition for independent practice. When assessments are used for high-stakes evaluations like certification, they must be demonstrably reliable and valid. The definition of assessment, and the necessary components of a valid instrument, will be summarized. An overview of practical applications of objective assessment as it applies to training, selection, and certification of surgeons will be presented.

A tool for training and evaluation of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the Global Operative Assessment Of Laparoscopic Skills-Groin Hernia (GOALS-GH).

BACKGROUND: the purpose of this study was to develop an assessment tool specific to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR), and to evaluate its reliability and validity in the operating room (OR) and skills laboratory. METHODS: the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills-Groin Hernia (GOALS-GH) was developed by surgeon-educators. Participants were assessed in the OR and/or on a physical simulator using GOALS-GH. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, and construct and concurrent validity were evaluated for 23 participants. RESULTS: the interrater reliability of GOALS-GH was >.70 for all raters in the OR and during simulated LIHR. The internal consistency of GOALS-GH items was .97. The mean total GOALS-GH score for experts was significantly higher than for novices in both environments. The correlation between GOALS-GH scores in the OR and simulator was .81 (P < .01; n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: GOALS-GH is an objective, reliable, and valid measure of the skills required to perform LIHR.

FLS and FES: comprehensive models of training and assessment.

The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic surgery (FLS) is a validated program for the teaching and evaluation of the basic knowledge and skills required to perform laparoscopic surgery. The educational component includes didactic, Web-based material and a simple, affordable physical simulator with specific tasks and a recommended curriculum. FLS certification requires passing a written multiple-choice examination and a proctored manual skills examination in the FLS simulator. The metrics for the FLS program have been rigorously validated to meet the highest educational standards, and certification is now a requirement for the American Board of Surgery. This article summarizes the validation process and the FLS-related research that has been done to date. The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery is a program modeled after FLS with a similar mission for flexible endoscopy. It is currently in the final stages of development and will be launched in April 2010. The program also includes learning and assessment components, and is undergoing the same meticulous validation process as FLS. These programs serve as models for the creation of simulation-based tools to teach skills and assess competence with the intention of optimizing patient safety and the quality of surgical education.

Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity. METHODS: The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both. RESULTS: For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.