CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Innovations in Medical EducationSurgical Simulation and TrainingSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

Training the endoscopy trainer: from general principles to specific concepts

Open access
Coderre, Sylvain, Anderson, John, Rostom, Alaa, McLaughlin, Kevin·2010·Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1155/2010/493578PMC PMC3004441
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Endoscopy instruction has progressed a great deal in recent years, evolving from the age-old dictum of ‘see one, do one’ to the current skillful application of sound educational principles. Some of these educational principles are generic and applicable to the teaching of any content at all levels, while others are quite specific to technical skills training. The present review summarizes these important principles under the following headings: creating a learner-centred curriculum; delivering an achievable learning task; and moving from theory to practice. The present article challenges national gastroenterology organizations to embrace these concepts in structured, outcome-based educational programs.

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 · 10.1155/2010/493578

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dual-task conditions decrease performance in both laboratory and medical settings.

    “Dual-task conditions are known to decrease perfor-mance in both laboratory settings [31] and medical settings [32][33][34][35] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    In “Delivering an Achievable Learning Task” (page unavailable), the paper says novices can have great difficulty with dual tasking and that competing stimuli can add cognitive load, particularly during colonoscopy. In “Moving from Theory to Practice” (page unavailable), it calls that load counterproductive for novice endoscopists. This supports the medical-setting concern, but does not establish that dual-task conditions decrease performance across medical settings generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Suter E, Mandin H, Small P. The sciences in the education of physicians. Basic Sci Educ 1998;8:7-9.
  2. Coderre S, Woloschuk W, McLaughlin K. Twelve tips for blueprinting. Med Teach 2009;31:322-4.
  3. Regehr G, Norman G. Issues in cognitive psychology: Implications for professional education. Acad Med 1996;71:988-1001.
  4. Anderson J. Teaching colonoscopy. In: Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB, eds. Colonoscopy: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009:141-53.
  5. Schmidt H. Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Med Educ 1993;27:422-32.
  6. Vickery A, Lake F. Teaching on the run tips 10: Giving feedback. Med J Aust 2005;183:267-8.
  7. Porte MC, Xeroulis G, Reznick R, Dubrowski A. Verbal feedback from an expert is more effective than self-accessed feedback about motion efficiency in learning new surgical skills. Am J Surg 2007;193:105-10.
  8. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Heniford T, Scott DJ. Limited feedback and video tutorials optimise learning and resource utilisation during laparascopic simulator training. Surgery 2007;142:202-6.
  9. Schmidt RA, Wulf G. Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation. Hum Factors 1997;39:509-25.
  10. Wulf G, Shea C. Understanding the role of augmented feedback: The good, the bad and the ugly. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004:121-44.
  11. Zheng B, Cassera MA, Martinec DV, Spaun GO, Swanstrom LL. Measuring mental workload during the performance of advanced laparoscopic tasks. Surg Endosc 2010;24:45-50.
  12. Starkes J, Cullen J, Macmahon C. A life-span model of the acquisition and retention of expert perceptual-motor performance. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004:259-81.
  13. Schmidt H, Norman G, Boshuizen H. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: Theory and implications. Acad Med 1990;65:611-21.
  14. Norman G, Brooks L. The non-analytical basis of clinical reasoning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 1997;2:173-84.
  15. van Gog T, Ericcson A, Rikers R, Paas F. Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Education ResearchTech Dev 2005;53:73-8.
  16. Janelle C, Duley A, Coombes S. Psychophysiological and related indices of attention during motor skill acquisition. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004:282-308.
  17. Ward P, Hodges N, Williams AM, Starkes J. Deliberate practice and expert performance: Defining the path to excellence. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004:231-58.
  18. Simon H, Chase W. Skill in chess. Am Sci 1973;61:394-403.
  19. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educ Psychol 2003;38:1-4.
  20. Rikers R, Van Gerven P, Schmidt H. Cognitive load theory as a tool for expertise development. Instr Sci 2004;32:173-82.
  21. Hodges N, Franks I. Instructions, demonstrations and the learning process. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004:145-74.
  22. Coderre S, Mandin H, Harasym P, Fick G. The effect of diagnostic reasoning on diagnostic success. Med Educ 2003;37:695-703.
  23. Rogers DA, Elstein A, Bordage G. Improving continuing medical education for surgical techniques: Applying the lessons learned in the first decade of minimal access surgery. Ann Surg 2001;233:159-66.
  24. Kahol K, Satava RM, Ferrara J, Smith ML. Effect of short-term pretrial practice on surgical proficiency in simulated environments: A randomized trial of the "preoperative warm-up" effect. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208:255-68.
  25. Shirai Y, Yoshida T, Shiraishi R, et al. Prospective randomized study on the use of a computer-based endoscopic simulator for training in esophagogastroduodenoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:1046-50.
  26. Lynagh M, Burton R, Sanson-Fisher R. A systematic review of medical skills laboratory training: Where to from here? Med Educ 2007;41:879-87.
  27. Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Fayez R, Fried GM. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room -a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg 2010;199:15-20.
  28. Raman M, Donnon T. Procedural skills education -colonoscopy as a model. Can J Gastroenterol 2008;22:767-70.
  29. McLeod PJ, Steinert Y, Trudel J, Gottesman R. Seven principles for teaching procedural and technical skills. Acad Med 2001;76:1080.
  30. Ringsted C. Experiential learning: Another turn on see one, do one. Med Educ 2009;43:606-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coderre, S., Anderson, J., Rostom, A., & McLaughlin, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • National Health Service (GB)
Corresponding author
Coderre, Sylvain
ORCID
Venue
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology
Publisher
Hindawi Limited
Published
2010
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
700-704
ISSN
0835-7900 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1155/2010/493578
PMC
PMC3004441
OpenAlex
W54558397
Cited by
33
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
0.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
endoscopy training, technical training, learner-centred curriculum, outcome-based education, gastroenterology education
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Endoscopy, Gastroenterology, Humans, Learning

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