Cited by 0Surgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical EducationGlobal Health and Surgery

Validity evidence for the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery laparoscopic skills: correlation with the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills

Grace Chen, Chi Chiung, Bar-El, Liron, Long, Jaime B., Frost, Anja, King, Cara R., Katz, Adi, Moawad, Nash S., Levy, Barbara +2 more·2026·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background The Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery manual skills examination is a new qualifying examination for board certification in obstetrics and gynecology. The aim of this study is to examine the validity evidence for the use of Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery as a summative evaluation by assessing performance of laparoscopic tasks (sleeve transfer, circle cut, extracorporeal knot tying, intracorporeal knot tying, and running stitch) using a previously studied global rating scale for laparoscopic surgery (Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills). Study design Expert laparoscopic educators evaluated video recordings of participants performing laparoscopic exercises from the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery construct validation trial using the modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, and tissue handling), scoring them on a 5-point anchored Likert scale with higher scores indicating better performance. Spearman's correlation tests were used to assess correlations among scores, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare groups. Weight kappa statistics were calculated to assess inter-rater agreement. All statistical analyses were conducted on R 4.3.1. Results We included 144 participants: 54 postgraduate year 1 residents, 55 postgraduate year 3 residents, 20 American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology-certified obstetrics and gynecology attendings, and 15 American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology-certified obstetrics and gynecology attendings who completed a Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery fellowship. We demonstrated that more proficient participants achieved higher Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills scores. There were weak to moderate negative correlations between Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills scores and time to task completion as well as total number of errors for each exercise (r=0.55-0.70, P<.001; r=0.28-0.55, P=.003 to P<.001, respectively). Participants who passed Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery scored better on Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (passed: median individual item Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills scores (interquartile range) 3 to 3.5 [2, 4] vs failed: 1 to 2 [1, 3], P<.001-.08). Conclusion More experienced participants and participants who passed Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery perform laparoscopic Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery exercises with better skills. Importantly, those who passed Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery performed at a corresponding Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills score of at least 3 (range, 1-5) for all the items (depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, and tissue handling). Given that Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills are easy to use and widely available, while Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery metrics are proprietary and cannot be accessed, Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills can be used as a proxy for the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery passing score during preparation. In addition, our study adds to the body of validity evidence, further supporting Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery as a summative evaluation for obstetrics and gynecology trainees.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2026.02.040

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11

Authors
Grace Chen, C. C., Bar-El, L., Long, J. B., Frost, A., King, C. R., Katz, A., Moawad, N. S., Levy, B., Wu, H., & Lerner, V.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Lenox Hill Hospital (US)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-07
Volume
235
Issue
1
Pages
214-220
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133352054
Cited by
0
References
11
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
Keywords
laparoscopic skills assessment, board certification examination, minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, laparoscopic skills, interobserver agreement, surgical fellowship
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Female, Gynecology, Humans, Internship and Residency, Laparoscopy, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review