MP23-08 INITIAL VALIDATION DURING DEVELOPMENT OF LOW COST ALTERNATIVE TO THE DV-TRAINER USING THE HYDRA SYSTEM

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Surgical Education & Skills Assessment II1 Apr 2015MP23-08 INITIAL VALIDATION DURING DEVELOPMENT OF LOW COST ALTERNATIVE TO THE DV-TRAINER USING THE HYDRA SYSTEM Swar Shah, Eric Hwang, Inderbir Gill, and Andrew Hung Swar ShahSwar Shah More articles by this author , Eric HwangEric Hwang More articles by this author , Inderbir GillInderbir Gill More articles by this author , and Andrew HungAndrew Hung More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1251AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Robotic simulation is a popular training modality. However, simulators are costly, driving a push for lower cost options to improve access to training. Herein, we evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of a proof-of-concept simulation platform developed by Mimic Technologies, Inc. using third party, off-the-shelf gaming controllers (Hydra System) on existing virtual (VR) and procedure-specific augmented reality (AR) and procedure-specific VR (PS VR) exercises previously validated on the dV-Trainer (dVT). METHODS Participants were classified as novice (no robot experience, n=21) or expert (≥30 console cases, n=9) and prospectively assessed on a VR suturing task, robotic partial nephrectomy procedure-specific AR module, and PS VR suturing task on both the Hydra and dVT platforms. Post exercise and post study questionnaires assessed realism of simulation (face validity) and utility for training (content validity), as well as user feedback for each system via Likert scale. Integrated tasks and questions in the AR module were assessed. Questionnaire responses, as well as novice and expert performance data, were compared using t tests to establish face, content, and construct validity. RESULTS Face Validity: Experts rated Hydra “very realistic” on the AR module (4/5 (2-5)), but less so for VR and PS VR tasks. VR on Hydra was significantly less realistic than dVT (p=0.02), with no difference in PS VR and AR. Content Validity: On the AR module, Hydra had content validity for training residents, and teaching anatomy and operation steps (4-5/5). The Hydra VR and PS VR tasks had lower content validity, with the VR task rating significantly less for training residents and teaching technical skills (p=0.01 and 0.005, respectively). Construct Validity: For the VR task construct validity was seen in 4 of 7 metrics (p ≤ 0.03) on Hydra and 6 of 7 metrics (p ≤0.04) on dVT. Hydra did not show construct validity in the AR module and PS VR task. User Feedback: Hydra was rated “moderately” easy, comfortable, and smooth to use (3/5 (1-4) each). The interface was rated “fair” (2/5 (1-3)), versus “very good” for dVT (4/5 (3-5), p= <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This proof-of-concept, low-cost prototype based on the Hydra System for robotic simulation demonstrates face and content validity in an AR module for teaching residents cognitive content (anatomy and steps). The prototype has construct validity presently limited to VR basic skills tasks. This data is valuable for defining platform refinements, and highlights the role of early validation during simulation development. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e270 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Swar Shah More articles by this author Eric Hwang More articles by this author Inderbir Gill More articles by this author Andrew Hung More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...