Development and Integration of DOPS as Formative Tests in Head and Neck Ultrasound Education: Proof of Concept Study for Exploration of Perceptions
, Maximilian Rink 2, Lukas Müller 3, Klaus Dirks 4, Carlotta Ille 1, Alessandro Bozzato 5, Christoph Sproll 6, Andreas Michael Weimer 7, Christian Neubert 5, Holger Buggenhagen 1, Benjamin Philipp Ernst 8, Luisa Symeou 2, Liv Annebritt Lorenz 9, Anke Hollinderbäumer 1 and Julian Künzel 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The training process in a diverse ENT ultrasound field needs standardization and uniformity. It is admirable to see a perfectly sound and methodologically well-envisioned study of proof of concept regarding DOPS as a learning, training, and assessment method.
The experiment's setting within the US course is also a vast advantage since a broader range of trainees/trainers is available.
You have adequately stated the limitations, especially regarding the validation, but it seems outside the scope of the work as the primary goal was identifying the proof of concept.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable evaluation of our manuscript!
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well-written article on the use of DOPS in head and neck ultrasound examination. I believe the article does not need any revision and is suitable for publication. Although, the differences in items of “feasibility of the tasks with sufficient preparation” and “measurements/assessment tasks” in table 2 between participants and examiners should be explained.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable evaluation of our manuscript! Regarding the significant differences between the rating of the participants and the examiniers of the items “feasibility of the tasks with sufficient preparation” and “measurements/assessment tasks“, we added the following statement to our discussion section:
Page 10: “Interestingly, only significant differences were found in the rating of the items “feasibility of the tasks with sufficient preparation” and “measurements/assessment tasks”. Although both participants and examiners rated the items in high scale ranges (≥5.5 points), the rating by the participants was significantly higher. This could be explained by the higher qualification of the examiners in terms of standardized examination procedures and clinical experience and should be taken as an opportunity to further modify the examination forms in the future.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
