Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation: An Assessment

Joel W. Jones, Mollie Perryman, Paul Judge, Maraya M. Baumanis, Kevin Sykes, Jayme R Dowdall, Cristina Cabrera-Muffly, James David Garnett, Shannon Kraft

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate otolaryngology residents’ level of confidence and understanding in interpreting laryngeal stroboscopy. Methods: Otolaryngology residents from three residency programs with fellowship-trained laryngologists on faculty were invited to participate. An assessment consisting of a survey and five stroboscopic exams was administered. Each exam consisted of questions on perceptual voice evaluation, laryngoscopic findings, and stroboscopic findings. Scores were compared to answers provided by three fellowship-trained laryngologists. Results: Thirty-eight of 47 invited residents (80.8%) enrolled in the study. On a five-point likert scale, residents reported low confidence (median = 2, range = 1–4) in interpreting stroboscopy, regardless of training program (P = 0.81). Mean assessment scores were 56.5% ± 11.9, with scores in perceptual voice evaluation = 68.5% ± 10.6; laryngoscopy = 70.2% ± 12.8; and stroboscopy = 45.3% ± 17.8. Residents performed worse on stroboscopy questions compared to laryngoscopy questions (P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference in scores by postgraduate year (P = 0.03), but not by institution (P = 0.34). A moderately positive correlation between reported level of confidence and overall scores (ρ =.47, P = 0.003) was demonstrated. Conclusions: Despite didactic and clinical exposure, residents report low confidence in interpreting stroboscopy and scored lower on stroboscopy-specific questions compared to other assessment items. Additional resources and learning opportunities are needed to improve resident confidence and comprehension of stroboscopy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Voice
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Stroboscopy
Education
Laryngoscopy
Otolaryngology
Internship and Residency
Learning

Keywords

  • Laryngology
  • Laryngoscopy
  • Otolaryngology
  • Resident education
  • Stroboscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Speech and Hearing
  • LPN and LVN

Cite this

Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation : An Assessment. / Jones, Joel W.; Perryman, Mollie; Judge, Paul; Baumanis, Maraya M.; Sykes, Kevin; Dowdall, Jayme R; Cabrera-Muffly, Cristina; Garnett, James David; Kraft, Shannon.

In: Journal of Voice, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jones, JW, Perryman, M, Judge, P, Baumanis, MM, Sykes, K, Dowdall, JR, Cabrera-Muffly, C, Garnett, JD & Kraft, S 2018, 'Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation: An Assessment', Journal of Voice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.11.016
Jones, Joel W. ; Perryman, Mollie ; Judge, Paul ; Baumanis, Maraya M. ; Sykes, Kevin ; Dowdall, Jayme R ; Cabrera-Muffly, Cristina ; Garnett, James David ; Kraft, Shannon. / Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation : An Assessment. In: Journal of Voice. 2018.
@article{4a59f6b0f2664f7bb3e49392b8944178,
title = "Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation: An Assessment",
abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate otolaryngology residents’ level of confidence and understanding in interpreting laryngeal stroboscopy. Methods: Otolaryngology residents from three residency programs with fellowship-trained laryngologists on faculty were invited to participate. An assessment consisting of a survey and five stroboscopic exams was administered. Each exam consisted of questions on perceptual voice evaluation, laryngoscopic findings, and stroboscopic findings. Scores were compared to answers provided by three fellowship-trained laryngologists. Results: Thirty-eight of 47 invited residents (80.8{\%}) enrolled in the study. On a five-point likert scale, residents reported low confidence (median = 2, range = 1–4) in interpreting stroboscopy, regardless of training program (P = 0.81). Mean assessment scores were 56.5{\%} ± 11.9, with scores in perceptual voice evaluation = 68.5{\%} ± 10.6; laryngoscopy = 70.2{\%} ± 12.8; and stroboscopy = 45.3{\%} ± 17.8. Residents performed worse on stroboscopy questions compared to laryngoscopy questions (P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference in scores by postgraduate year (P = 0.03), but not by institution (P = 0.34). A moderately positive correlation between reported level of confidence and overall scores (ρ =.47, P = 0.003) was demonstrated. Conclusions: Despite didactic and clinical exposure, residents report low confidence in interpreting stroboscopy and scored lower on stroboscopy-specific questions compared to other assessment items. Additional resources and learning opportunities are needed to improve resident confidence and comprehension of stroboscopy.",
keywords = "Laryngology, Laryngoscopy, Otolaryngology, Resident education, Stroboscopy",
author = "Jones, {Joel W.} and Mollie Perryman and Paul Judge and Baumanis, {Maraya M.} and Kevin Sykes and Dowdall, {Jayme R} and Cristina Cabrera-Muffly and Garnett, {James David} and Shannon Kraft",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.11.016",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Voice",
issn = "0892-1997",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation

T2 - An Assessment

AU - Jones, Joel W.

AU - Perryman, Mollie

AU - Judge, Paul

AU - Baumanis, Maraya M.

AU - Sykes, Kevin

AU - Dowdall, Jayme R

AU - Cabrera-Muffly, Cristina

AU - Garnett, James David

AU - Kraft, Shannon

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To evaluate otolaryngology residents’ level of confidence and understanding in interpreting laryngeal stroboscopy. Methods: Otolaryngology residents from three residency programs with fellowship-trained laryngologists on faculty were invited to participate. An assessment consisting of a survey and five stroboscopic exams was administered. Each exam consisted of questions on perceptual voice evaluation, laryngoscopic findings, and stroboscopic findings. Scores were compared to answers provided by three fellowship-trained laryngologists. Results: Thirty-eight of 47 invited residents (80.8%) enrolled in the study. On a five-point likert scale, residents reported low confidence (median = 2, range = 1–4) in interpreting stroboscopy, regardless of training program (P = 0.81). Mean assessment scores were 56.5% ± 11.9, with scores in perceptual voice evaluation = 68.5% ± 10.6; laryngoscopy = 70.2% ± 12.8; and stroboscopy = 45.3% ± 17.8. Residents performed worse on stroboscopy questions compared to laryngoscopy questions (P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference in scores by postgraduate year (P = 0.03), but not by institution (P = 0.34). A moderately positive correlation between reported level of confidence and overall scores (ρ =.47, P = 0.003) was demonstrated. Conclusions: Despite didactic and clinical exposure, residents report low confidence in interpreting stroboscopy and scored lower on stroboscopy-specific questions compared to other assessment items. Additional resources and learning opportunities are needed to improve resident confidence and comprehension of stroboscopy.

AB - Objectives: To evaluate otolaryngology residents’ level of confidence and understanding in interpreting laryngeal stroboscopy. Methods: Otolaryngology residents from three residency programs with fellowship-trained laryngologists on faculty were invited to participate. An assessment consisting of a survey and five stroboscopic exams was administered. Each exam consisted of questions on perceptual voice evaluation, laryngoscopic findings, and stroboscopic findings. Scores were compared to answers provided by three fellowship-trained laryngologists. Results: Thirty-eight of 47 invited residents (80.8%) enrolled in the study. On a five-point likert scale, residents reported low confidence (median = 2, range = 1–4) in interpreting stroboscopy, regardless of training program (P = 0.81). Mean assessment scores were 56.5% ± 11.9, with scores in perceptual voice evaluation = 68.5% ± 10.6; laryngoscopy = 70.2% ± 12.8; and stroboscopy = 45.3% ± 17.8. Residents performed worse on stroboscopy questions compared to laryngoscopy questions (P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference in scores by postgraduate year (P = 0.03), but not by institution (P = 0.34). A moderately positive correlation between reported level of confidence and overall scores (ρ =.47, P = 0.003) was demonstrated. Conclusions: Despite didactic and clinical exposure, residents report low confidence in interpreting stroboscopy and scored lower on stroboscopy-specific questions compared to other assessment items. Additional resources and learning opportunities are needed to improve resident confidence and comprehension of stroboscopy.

KW - Laryngology

KW - Laryngoscopy

KW - Otolaryngology

KW - Resident education

KW - Stroboscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057992894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057992894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.11.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.11.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 30545492

AN - SCOPUS:85057992894

JO - Journal of Voice

JF - Journal of Voice

SN - 0892-1997

ER -