↓ Skip to main content

The reliability and usability of the Anesthesiologists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) system in simulation research

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters


4 Dimensions

Readers on

19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
The reliability and usability of the Anesthesiologists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) system in simulation research
Published in
Advances in Simulation, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41077-016-0013-2
Pubmed ID

Laura Zwaan, Lian Tjon Soei Len, Cordula Wagner, Dick van Groeningen, Mark Kolenbrander, Ralf Krage


Non-technical skills (NTS) such as leadership and team work are important in providing good quality of care. One system to assess physicians' NTS is the Anesthesiologists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) system. The present study evaluates the ANTS system on the interrater reliability and usability for research purposes. Ten anesthesiologists and 20 anesthesiology residents performed two resuscitation scenarios (with and without the presence of distractors) in a simulation room with a full-scale patient simulator. The scenarios were videotaped. Two independent raters rated the NTS of the anesthesiologists using the ANTS system. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine the interrater reliability of both the total NTS score and the measured differences between the two scenarios. The raters filled out a questionnaire to obtain insights in the usability of the ANTS system for research purposes. The ICC for the total score of the NTS was substantial (0.683), and the ICC of the elements varied between 0.371 for assessing capabilities and 0.670 for providing and maintaining standards. The intraclass correlation coefficient of measuring differences was fair (0.502). The raters judged the usability as good. The ANTS system was reliable for the total score and usable to measure physicians' NTS in a research setting. However, there was variation between the reliability of the elements. We recommend that if the ANTS is used for research, a pilot study should determine elements not applicable or observable in the scenario of interest; these elements should be excluded from the study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Other 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 58%
Computer Science 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
of 13,973,339 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
of 106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,973,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them