Otology training solely using cadavers is challenging because of scarcity and high costs. The use of additive manufacturing technology is a promising alternative. This study aimed to qualitatively validate new additive manufacturing temporal bone specimens for their realism and ability to train surgical skills.

Three additive manufacturing models generated using cadaveric temporal bones were evaluated. Three otologists with experience as trainers dissected and evaluated each specimen.

The additive manufacturing specimens scored an average of 4.26 ± 0.72 (out of 5) points and received positive feedback. The agreement between the three expert raters was high (intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.745).

The results suggested that the additive manufacturing temporal bones were able to faithfully reproduce a training experience similar to that on cadaveric temporal bones. Further studies that investigate the effectiveness of these specimens in training surgical skills are needed before integrating them into surgical training curricula.

“Ecological validity” (EV) is classically defined as test’s ability to predict real-world functioning, either alone or together with test’s similarity to real-world tasks. In neuropsychological literature on assessment of executive functions (EF), EV is conceptualized inconsistently, leading to misconceptions about the utility of tests. The goal of this systematic review was to examine how EV is conceptualized in studies of EF tests described as ecologically valid.

MEDLINE and PsychINFO Databases were searched. PRISMA guidelines were observed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, this search yielded 90 articles. Deductive content analysis was employed to determine how the term EV was used.

About 1/3 of the studies conceptualized EV as the test’s ability to predict functional outcomes, 1/3 as both the ability to predict functional outcome and similarity to real-world tasks, and 1/3 were either unclear about the meaning of the term or relied on notions unrelated to classical definitions (e.g., similarity to real-world tasks alone, association with other tests, or the ability to discriminate between populations).

Conceptualizations of the term EV in literature on EF assessment vary grossly, subsuming the notions of criterion, construct, and face validity, as well as sensitivity/specificity. Such inconsistency makes it difficult to interpret clinical utility of tests that are described as ecologically valid. We call on the field to require that, at minimum, the term EV be clearly defined in all publications, or replaced with more concrete terminology (e.g., criterion validity).