Development of a lecture evaluation tool rooted in cognitive load theory: A modified Delphi study.

Background: Didactics play a key role in medical education. There is no standardized didactic evaluation tool to assess quality and provide feedback to instructors. Cognitive load theory provides a framework for lecture evaluations. We sought to develop an evaluation tool, rooted in cognitive load theory, to assess quality of didactic lectures. Methods: We used a modified Delphi method to achieve expert consensus for items in a lecture evaluation tool. Nine emergency medicine educators with expertise in cognitive load participated in three modified Delphi rounds. In the first two rounds, experts rated the importance of including each item in the evaluation rubric on a 1 to 9 Likert scale with 1 labeled as "not at all important" and 9 labeled as "extremely important." In the third round, experts were asked to make a binary choice of whether the item should be included in the final evaluation tool. In each round, the experts were invited to provide written comments, edits, and suggested additional items. Modifications were made between rounds based on item scores and expert feedback. We calculated descriptive statistics for item scores. Results: We completed three Delphi rounds, each with 100% response rate. After Round 1, we removed one item, made major changes to two items, made minor wording changes to nine items, and modified the scale of one item. Following Round 2, we eliminated three items, made major wording changes to one item, and made minor wording changes to one item. After the third round, we made minor wording changes to two items. We also reordered and categorized items for ease of use. The final evaluation tool consisted of nine items. Conclusions: We developed a lecture assessment tool rooted in cognitive load theory specific to medical education. This tool can be applied to assess quality of instruction and provide important feedback to speakers.

Validity evidence for an instrument for cognitive load for virtual didactic sessions.

BACKGROUND: COVID necessitated the shift to virtual resident instruction. The challenge of learning via virtual modalities has the potential to increase cognitive load. It is important for educators to reduce cognitive load to optimize learning, yet there are few available tools to measure cognitive load. The objective of this study is to identify and provide validity evidence following Messicks' framework for an instrument to evaluate cognitive load in virtual emergency medicine didactic sessions. METHODS: This study followed Messicks' framework for validity including content, response process, internal structure, and relationship to other variables. Content validity evidence included: (1) engagement of reference librarian and literature review of existing instruments; (2) engagement of experts in cognitive load, and relevant stakeholders to review the literature and choose an instrument appropriate to measure cognitive load in EM didactic presentations. Response process validity was gathered using the format and anchors of instruments with previous validity evidence and piloting amongst the author group. A lecture was provided by one faculty to four residency programs via ZoomTM. Afterwards, residents completed the cognitive load instrument. Descriptive statistics were collected; Cronbach's alpha assessed internal consistency of the instrument; and correlation for relationship to other variables (quality of lecture). RESULTS: The 10-item Leppink Cognitive Load instrument was selected with attention to content and response process validity evidence. Internal structure of the instrument was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80). Subscales performed well-intrinsic load (α = 0.96, excellent), extrinsic load (α = 0.89, good), and germane load (α = 0.97, excellent). Five of the items were correlated with overall quality of lecture (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The 10-item Cognitive Load instrument demonstrated good validity evidence to measure cognitive load and the subdomains of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. This instrument can be used to provide feedback to presenters to improve the cognitive load of their presentations.

Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1-L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws.

BACKGROUND: The use of pedicle screws is the gold standard for supplemental posterior fixation in lateral interbody fusion. Information about the performance of transfacet pedicle screws compared to standard pedicle screws and rods in the upper lumbar spine with or without a lateral interbody fusion device in place is limited. METHODS: Fifteen fresh frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine segments (T12-L4) were studied using standard pure moment flexibility tests. Specimens were divided into two groups to receive either bilateral transfacet pedicle screws (n=8) or bilateral pedicle screws (n=14). Stability of each motion segment (L1-L2 and L2-L3) was evaluated intact, with posterior instrumentation with an intact disc, with posterior instrumentation and a lateral interbody fusion device in place, and following cyclic loading with the interbody device and posterior instrumentation still in place. Both raw values of motion (range of motion, lax zone and stiff zone) and normalized mobility (ratios to intact) were analyzed for each case. FINDINGS: In terms of immediate stability, transfacet pedicle screws performed equivalent to similarly sized pedicle screws, both with intact disc and with lateral interbody fusion device in all directions of loading. Stability following cyclic loading decreased significantly during lateral bending and axial rotation. INTERPRETATION: Posterior fixation with transfacet pedicle screws provides equivalent immediate stability to similarly sized pedicle screws. However, in the presence of a lateral interbody fusion device, pedicle screws seem to resist loosening more and may be a better option for fusion in the upper lumbar spine.

Evaluation of a minimally invasive procedure for sacroiliac joint fusion - an in vitro biomechanical analysis of initial and cycled properties.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain has become a recognized factor in low back pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a minimally invasive surgical SI joint fusion procedure on the in vitro biomechanics of the SI joint before and after cyclic loading. METHODS: SEVEN CADAVERIC SPECIMENS WERE TESTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: intact, posterior ligaments (PL) and pubic symphysis (PS) cut, treated (three implants placed), and after 5,000 cycles of flexion-extension. The range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was determined with an applied 7.5 N · m moment using an optoelectronic system. Results for each ROM were compared using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Holm-Sidák post-hoc test. RESULTS: Placement of three fusion devices decreased the flexion-extension ROM. Lateral bending and axial rotation were not significantly altered. All PL/PS cut and post-cyclic ROMs were larger than in the intact condition. The 5,000 cycles of flexion-extension did not lead to a significant increase in any ROMs. DISCUSSION: In the current model, placement of three 7.0 mm iFuse Implants significantly decreased the flexion-extension ROM. Joint ROM was not increased by 5,000 flexion-extension cycles.