Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the face, content and construct validity of a low-cost unilateral cleft lip trainer through a multicentre trainee-trainer workshop.DesignProspective multicentre validation study.SettingThree accredited plastic surgery training centres.Patients/ParticipantsSixty-two plastic surgery residents participated in standardised simulation workshops.InterventionsParticipants underwent lectures, video demonstrations and supervised practice of unilateral cleft lip repair using the low-cost simulator. Pre- and post-workshop questionnaires assessed self-reported knowledge and procedural understanding. Participants rated the model for face and content validity using a 5-point Likert scale. Faculty assessed simulator-based performance using a 10-point checklist.Main Outcome Measure(s)Face validity, content validity, construct validity, pre- and post-workshop knowledge scores, repair time, suture-line integrity and lip-height symmetry.ResultsKnowledge scores increased from 55% to 87%, with significant improvement in chronological recall of repair steps (P < .001). Face validity exceeded 90% across anatomical and procedural domains, with teaching usefulness rated highest (98%). Content validity was strongly supported, with 99% of participants recommending curriculum integration. Construct validity demonstrated significant discrimination between first-, second- and third-year residents, with mean performance scores of 7.1, 8.4 and 9.6, respectively (P < .001). Repair times decreased with increasing training level, while senior trainees achieved superior repair quality.ConclusionsThe low-cost unilateral cleft lip trainer demonstrated favourable face, content and construct validity within a structured workshop setting. Its affordability and reproducibility support its use as an adjunct for procedural rehearsal and assessment in plastic surgery training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vathulya et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: