PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10115671

1990 surgical technologist job analysis.

M L Wall
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The job analysis provides information about job tasks currently performed by surgical technologists that will be used to update the certifying examination outline. Looking beyond this essential need, it also provides a wealth of information about the people in the job. It ensures that surgical technologists have a clear picture of their important role in the larger field of health care. This knowledge will enable them to chart a course for the future.

Explore related subjects

CertificationClinical CompetenceData CollectionDemographyEducational MeasurementJob DescriptionOperating Room TechniciansPrejudiceTask Performance and AnalysisUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M L Wall. 1991. 1990 surgical technologist job analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10115671/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗