Table 2.

Summary of tools and study design methodologies

Author	Country	Procedure	Study type	Medical students (total sample)	Tool type/items/scoring	Reliability IRR/validity	Paper strength BEME – Veloski (2006)
Liddell et al. (13)	Australia	Basic suture	Comparative	92 + 93− 3rd + 5th years	Global 4 themes 13 items weighted (13)	Validity – content/face – EV Reports IRR – No stats- no blinding	4 –Results clear
Wang et al. (14)	USA	Suturing	Comparative	8 (23) inc Dermatology Residents 4th years	Checklist 12 items weighted (20)	Single assessor – content/face validity – EV, IRR – N/A	3 – Probably can accept results
O’ Connor et al. (12)	Canada	Suturing/intubation	Descriptive tool development	88 (88) 5th years	Checklist 21 items weighted (21)	Validity – content/face/IRR- 0.65 suture/0.71 intubation	4 – Results clear
Kovacs et al. (15)	Canada	Airway	RCT	66 (84) inc OT's/dentists 1st years Power study conducted***	Checklist 24 items weighted (52)	IRR – correlation co-efficient 0.93(Bullock)*- not re-tested validity content/face – expert validation (EV)	4 – Results clear
McKinley et al. (18)	UK	Procedural skills-generic	Descriptive tool development	46(42)inc nurses	Global (4 themes) 42 items – 12 procedural (not yet weighted)	Content/face validity/-EV Predicted reliability of 0.79 Generalisability – 0.76	4 – Results clear
Engum et al. (16)	USA	IV cannula	Comparative	93 (163)inc nurses 3rd years	Checklist 21 items weighted (29)	Reports IRR (no statistics) Validity – face/content – EV	4 – Results clear
Morse et al. (17)	Canada	NG tube	Descriptive	4 (32) inc nurses Medical year not stated	Checklist 4 items on tube prep (yes/no)	Nil reported on reliability or validity of tool	3 – Probably can accept results