Table 5.

Evidence of validity

	Tool	Content	Response process	Internal structure	Relations to other variables	Conse-quences	Total
Global Rating Scale
1	Sidhu et al. [17] Self-assessment scale	2	1	2	1	1	7
2	Wohaibi et al. [18] OpRate	0	1	1	1	0	3
3	Niitsu et al. [32] OSATS	2	2	0	1	1	6
4	Jenkins et al. [19] GMAS and modified DOPS (GMAS)	2	2	0	2	3	9
5	Watanabe et al.[ 20] IRT-GOALS	2	0	3	1	3	9
Error-based rating scale
6	Miskovic et al. [8] OCHRA	2	2	2	3	3	12
Procedure-specific tool
7	Dath. et al. [33] OCRS	2	1	2	1	1	7
8	Sarker et al. [21, 22]* Technical skills assessment tool for laparoscopic colectomy (TSALC)	2	0	1	1	1	5
9	Palter et al. [7, 23]* Procedure-specific evaluation tools (PSET)	3	1	1	1	1	7
10	Miskovic et al. [24–26, 34]* GAS-tool	2	1	2	1	3	9
11	Miskovic et al. [1, 27, 28]* CAT-tool	3	1	3	3	3	13
12	Glarner et al. [29] Comprehensive assessment Tool (CT)	3	1	0	1	1	6
13	Champagne et al. [2, 30]* ASCRS Tool	3	2	2	2	3	12
14	Nakayama et al. [31] ASLAC score	3	0	0	0	0	3

^*Scoring system: 0: the study provided no discussion or data, 1: the study provided limited data that support validity evidence, 2: the study provided some data (intermediate) that support validity evidence, 3: the study provided multiple data that support validity evidence

^*The highest level of validity for the respective studies is reported