EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REPORT

Development and Validation of a Bovine

Castration Model and Rubric
Stacy L.  Anderson ■ Lynda Miller ■ Philippa Gibbons ■ Julie A. Hunt ■ Jerry Roberson ■
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51

Jeffrey A. Raines ■ Gil Patterson ■ John J. Dascanio

ABSTRACT
Veterinary students require deliberate practice to reach competence in surgical bovine castration, but animal
availability limits opportunities for practice. We sought to create and validate a surgical bovine castration model
consisting of a molded silicone scrotum and testicles to allow students to practice this skill without the use of
live animals. We sought to validate the model and associated scoring rubric for use in a veterinary clinical skills
course. A convenience sample of third-year veterinary students (n = 19) who had never castrated a bovine were
randomized into two groups. The traditionally trained (T) group performed castration on a live bull calf after a
50-minute instructional lecture. The model-trained (M) group received the same lecture and a 2-hour clinical
skills session practicing bovine castration using the model.  All students were subsequently digitally recorded while
castrating a live bull calf. Performance recordings were scored by an investigator blinded to group. Survey data
were collected from the students and from expert veterinarians testing the model (n = 8). Feedback from both
groups was positive. The M group had higher performance scores than the T group (M group, M = 80.6; T group,
M = 68.2; p = .005). Reliability of rubric scores was adequate at .74. No difference was found in surgical time
(M group, M = 4.5 min;T group, M = 5.5 min; p = .12). Survey feedback indicated that experts and students considered
the model useful. Model training improved students’ performance scores and provided evidence for validation of
the model and rubric.

Key words: veterinary simulation, surgical bovine castration, surgical skills, clinical skills training, veterinary
students, veterinary education, model

INTRODUCTION impractical because of availability, storage, disposal, and

Castration of the bovine is performed to improve carcass
characteristics and to decrease aggressiveness and sexual
activity.1,2 However, surgical castration can have a negative
impact on animal welfare if it causes acute or chronic pain,
hemorrhage, physiological stress, post-operative infection,
or decreased performance.2–5 Among bovine practitioners,
surgical castration is commonly performed on beef cattle
weighing more than 270 kilograms.6 Thus, proficiency in
surgical castration of a bull should be expected of entry-level
veterinarians practicing in bovine-exclusive or mixed ani-
mal practices. In a survey of bovine veterinarians, the most
common surgical techniques included excision of the distal
scrotum with a scalpel followed by removal of the testicles
by manually twisting or emasculating.6 Veterinarians also
reported the use of a Newberry knife or conventional knife
to incise the scrotum and use of the Henderson Castration
Tool or surgical ligation to remove the testicles.6 To become
proficient at these surgical castration methods, veterinary
students require multiple surgical sessions.
Traditionally, surgical training for veterinary students
has involved the use of cadavers and live animals; however,
the use of live animals in surgical training presents a vari-
ety of ethical issues, and the use of cadaver tissue is often
decomposition.7 The use of models in veterinary surgical
and clinical skills training has repeatedly been shown to be
of value in veterinary curricula.7–17 Simulation-based prac-
tice before performing a surgical skill on a live animal can
improve students’ level of proficiency and facilitate skills
assessment, and it may protect animal welfare.7,8,12,15,18,19
Veterinary surgical models are becoming more widely used
to teach the novice veterinary student key surgical skills to
transfer to live patients. A meta-analytic study has shown
that for medical doctors, simulation-based medical educa-
tion techniques are superior to those of traditional teaching
methods for a variety of medical and surgical skills, and
the literature supporting this conclusion is growing for the
veterinary medical field.20
To our knowledge, a commercially or privately sourced
model is not available for castration of the bovine. The
goals of this study were to produce a cost-effective bo-
vine castration model that would increase the proficiency
of veterinary students’ surgical skills before performing
castration on a live bull calf. We sought to validate the
model using a framework consisting of content evidence,
evidence of relationship with other variables, and internal
structure evidence.21,22 Our framework stipulated that if the

96 JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC  doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016

 model was to be validated for use in teaching veterinary
students to perform surgical castration of the bovine, then
• experienced bovine veterinarians will rate the mod-
el’s ease of use, realism, and suitability for student
training favorably (content evidence),
• students who trained on the model before castrat-
ing a live bull calf will achieve higher performance
scores than students who had not first undergone
model training (relationship with other variables;
level of training), and
• students’ scores achieved while castrating a live bull
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
calf will demonstrate adequate reliability (internal
structure evidence).
We hypothesized that a model could be developed
that would be acceptable to experienced clinicians, that
model-trained students would achieve higher performance
scores when castrating their first live bull calf, and that
acceptable reliability of rubric scores could be attained.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was approved by the Institutional Review
Board and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
at Lincoln Memorial University (LMU).
Development of the Model
Large animal faculty at the LMU College of Veterinary
Medicine (CVM) identified the need for a bovine castration
Figure 1:  Components and instruction to make the bovine castration model: (a) Silicone (Ecoflex®) was painted over panty
hose to form the scrotum; (b) latex tubing of various diameters was sheathed in plastic to form the spermatic cord; (c) silicone
­(Ecoflex®) was poured into hollow plastic spheres to form the testicle and a leur lock connector was embedded into each testicle
to make it re-usable; (d) components were assembled into the scrotum; and (e) components were hung from a wooden board that
is hung at the level of the scrotum in a live bull calf
doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016  JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC
model. Models were created by a dedicated model maker
employed by LMU CVM. Model prototypes were tested
and modified on the basis of feedback from the large animal
faculty. The creation of the final version is described here
and illustrated in Figure 1.
Briefly, a frame was made using a 591-milliliter plastic
beverage bottle secured to a metal rod over which a synthetic
bovine scrotum was made from platinum-cure silicone
rubber (EcoFlex 00-30 platinum, Smooth-On, Macungie,
PA) painted over a nylon stocking (Figure 1a). Spermatic
cords were created using used 9-millimeter-diameter latex
tubing and 6-millimeter Penrose drains to represent the vas
deferens and testicular vessels, respectively (Figure 1b). A
mold was created to pour silicone (EcoFlex 00-30 platinum,
Smooth-On, Macungie, PA) that exhibited similar size,
shape, and consistency as testicles from a 300-kilogram bull
calf (Figure 1c). A male leur-lock connector was embedded
into each testicle, and a female leur-lock connector was se-
cured to the latex tubing in the spermatic cord with a nylon
cable tie to allow replacement of the spermatic cords and
reuse of the testicles (Figure 1c). The entire spermatic cord
was encased in a plastic sleeve (Coveralls Sheath Covers,
Continental Plastic Corp., Delavan, WI) and secured with
a nylon cable tie to mimic the fascia that must be stripped
to expose the spermatic cord (Figure 1b). The testicles and
spermatic cords were put into the scrotum to complete the
model (Figure 1d). The tubing and scrotum were filled
with glycerin that was dyed red. The castration model
97
 was attached to a wooden board, and the board was hung
at a level similar to that of the scrotum in a live bull calf
(Figure 1e). In practice, the model could be used for surgical
and non-surgical castration (e.g., banding). It may also be
used to teach spermatic cord or testicular blocks (Figure 2).
Veterinarians’ Evaluation of the Model
Before use of the model in a laboratory session for vet-
erinary students, eight experienced bovine practitioners
who were not faculty at LMU CVM evaluated the model.
Practitioners could choose their preferred method of enter-
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
ing the scrotum on the model (excision of distal scrotum
with scalpel or incision of scrotum with Newberry knife).
Survey data were collected using a 5-point Likert scale
(Appendix 1). Questions revolved around fidelity of the
model and perceived ability to enhance students’ learning,
protect animal welfare, and promote safety while perform-
ing the procedure. Experts were asked to make positive or
negative written comments about the model.
Comparison of Student Learning Outcomes
A convenience sample of third-year veterinary students
(n = 19) who had never performed a bovine castration
were recruited from a class of 102 to participate in the
study. Students were randomly assigned a number and
divided evenly into two groups, the traditionally trained
(T) group and the model-trained (M) group. Before us-
ing the model or performing castration of a live bull calf,
all students attended a 50-minute lecture in the regular
curriculum about castration of the bovine. All students
had been through the LMU CVM surgical skills training
Figure 2:  The bovine castration model: (a) incising the scrotum using a Newberry knife, (b) stripping fascia from the spermatic
cord, and (c) emasculating the spermatic cord
98
program that involves repetitive surgical skills practice
on a canine spay model during their second year; and all
students had performed a spay or neuter on a live canine
within 2–4 months of participating in the study. Students
randomized to the M group also participated in a 2-hour
clinical skills laboratory taught by multiple food animal
veterinarian instructors in which the student-to-instructor
ratio was 8:1 before performing surgical castration on a
live bull calf. During the laboratory, students could choose
how they incised the scrotum on a single model using a
Newberry knife or scalpel blade, but all students used
Serra emasculators to emasculate the cord on the model.
Students in the T group received no additional training
before castrating a live bovine but trained with the model
after performing a live castration.
Three to four weeks after completing their respective
training program, all students castrated a live bull calf
while being digitally recorded by an investigator with
a hand-held video recorder (Sony Handycam HDR-
CX240, Sony Corp.). Participants were identified by a
paper with a unique number held up at the start of the
recording. All students were coached by an instructor
(LM) as necessary while performing the castration on
the bull calves to protect animal welfare. The instruc-
tor was told to provide as little assistance as possible
but was required to ascertain that the procedure was
performed safely and correctly. Bull calves were 3- to
4-month-old Angus selected on the basis of weight of
more than 100 kilograms and need for castration. Students
could choose to use a scalpel or Newberry knife to incise
the scrotum after they heard a brief explanation of the
JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC  doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016
 advantages and disadvantages by their instructor. All
students used Serra emasculators to crush and transect
the spermatic cord.
Briefly, the surgical procedure was as follows: An in-
tratesticular block was performed in each testicle with
5 milliters of 2% lidocaine, the scrotum was incised with
a Newberry knife or number 20 scalpel blade, the fascia
of the cord was stripped, the emasculators were applied
proximal to the testicle for a minimum of 3 minutes, and
the second testicle was similarly emasculated. Calves were
turned out to pasture and monitored once daily for 3 days
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
for post-operative complications by the farm manager and
the supervising veterinarian (LM). After using the model
and castrating a live calf, students completed a survey
retrospectively evaluating the bovine castration model
using a 5-point Likert scale that was similar to that used
by practitioners (Appendix 2).
The digital recordings were captured in such a way as
to exclude student identifiers and were edited to remove
all sound. The recorded procedures were scored and timed
by a single investigator (PG) blinded to group who was
experienced in performing bovine castration and teaching
students how to perform the procedure. Surgical time was
recorded from the start of the first incision to emasculation
of the second testicle (the moment the spermatic cord was
transected). The investigator also recorded the number of
times the instructor physically assisted the student with
the procedure. The digital recordings were viewed on a
computer monitor, and the evaluator could pause or replay
the recordings as needed.
The digital recordings were scored using a rubric that
was developed by a subset of faculty (SLA, LM) who
were experienced in teaching and assessing large animal
surgical skills. The items in the rubric reflected the steps
for performing a castration on a live bull calf. Each item
was scored as unsatisfactory (0), borderline (1), good (2), or
excellent (3). The maximum achievable rubric score was
36 points. Students’ scores were converted into a percentage
before statistical analysis to account for any missing values.
To capture a more holistic view of the performance, two
general surgical skills (tissue handling and efficiency) were
scored separately using a global rating scale (GRS), and an
overall GRS score was independently determined. Scores
for each measure of the GRS ranged from 1 for a very poor
performance to 6 for an excellent one.
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed with GraphPad Prism version 7.02
(GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA). Categorical data
(survey data, individual task scores from the rubric,
tissue handling score, efficiency score, and overall GRS
score) were compared between control and experimental
groups using Mann–Whitney tests. A Shapiro–Wilk test
of normality was performed on continuous data (surgical
time, number of times assisted by instructor, and task-
specific scores transformed into a percentage). Because
these data were normally distributed, a t-test was used
to compare data between control and experimental
groups. Internal consistency of rubric scores was mea-
sured using Cronbach’s α. Effect sizes were calculated
using Cohen’s d.
doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016  JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC
RESULTS
Development of the Model
The model went through three iterations before the final
design was approved by the faculty who would use it to
train veterinary students. Production time and cost were
kept to a modest level to allow the model’s inclusion as
part of the core veterinary clinical skills curriculum for all
students. The cost to produce one model was $20 for mate-
rials. Because parts of the model were designed for reuse,
including the testicles and the board frame from which
the scrotum hung, subsequent models could be made at
a reset cost of $10.
Veterinarians’ Evaluation of the Model
All experts (eight of eight) agreed or strongly agreed that the
final model design had adequate landmarks, felt realistic,
was easy to use, was suitable to give students a general
idea of the actual tactile experience when performing this
skill, could improve animal welfare, and was safe. Most
experts (seven of eight) agreed or strongly agreed that the
model encouraged the correct steps (one neutral), would
increase students’ learning ability by first performing the
skill on the model (one neutral), and could be used to as-
sess whether a student was ready to progress to perform
live surgery (two neutrals). Comments from five of the
experts highlighted areas for improvement, including
the addition of more realistic gubernaculum and fascia
to strip (one expert), making the spermatic cord more
anatomically realistic in feel for applying the emasculators
(three experts), and making sure testicles are side by side
(one expert). See Figure 3 for a graphical representation
of expert survey data.
Comparison of Student Learning Outcomes
Task-specific rubric percentage scores were lower for
the T group than for the M group (T group, M = 68.2%,
SD = 9.8; M group, M = 80.6%, SD = 6.0; p = .005). We
found no difference in any single line item rubric scores
between the T and M groups on the task-specific portion
of the rubric, except for the score for exteriorizing the
testicles, for which students who used the model first had
significantly higher scores (T group, Mdn = 2, range = 1–3;
M group, Mdn = 3, range = 2–3; p = .01). Overall global
rating scores did not differ between groups (T group,
Mdn = 5, range = 4–5; M group, Mdn = 5, range = 4–5;
p > .99). Full rubric results can be seen in Table 1. Inter-
nal consistency of the scores generated by the 12-item
rubric was .743.
The T group took an average of 5.5 minutes (SD = 2.0),
and the M group took an average of 4.5 minutes (SD = 1.6)
to complete the live surgery. This difference did not reach
statistical significance, although the effect size was me-
dium (p = .12, d = 0.55; Figure 4). Students in the T group
required the instructor to physically assist with the per-
formance of the surgery more often (M = 3.7, SD = 2.4)
than students in the M group (M = 1.1, SD = 1.3, p = .01,
d = 1.35; Figure 4). We found no between-groups difference
in the number of students using a Newberry knife (three
in the T group, one in the M group). a scalpel (p = .58).
No serious post-operative complications (e.g., bleeding
99
 Expert Survey of Model
5

4
Likert Scale
3

1
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51

0
Landmark Ease of Encouraged Tactile Increase Safety Use for
accuracy Use Correct score Learning Assessment
Steps Ability

Figure 3:  Expert survey results

Note: Bar represents median

Table 1:  Summary of data obtained using the rubric during live castration of a bull calf

T group, M group,
Task Mdn (range) Mdn (range) p
1. Testicles are both located on palpation 2 (0–2) 2 (1–3) .50
2. Incision is made or bottom of the scrotum is excised; approximately 1–2 in. 2 (0–2) 2 (2–3) .72
of the base of the scrotum should be removed
3. Smooth, straight incision through all layers of the scrotum 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) >.99
4. Proper blunt dissection through fascia to exteriorize testicles 2 (1–3) 3 (2–3) .01
5.Vaginal tunic left intact at emasculation site for closed castration (Testicle 1) 3 (1–3) 3 (2–3) .75
6. Testicular cord stripped down adequately (Testicle 1) 2 (1–3) 2 (2–3) .42
7. Safely cuts cord with the emasculators facing the correct direction (nut to 2 (2–3) 2 (2–3) >.99
nut; Testicle 1)
8. Checks cord for bleeding before returning to body (Testicle 1) 2 (1–2) 2 (1–3) .23
9.Vaginal tunic left intact at emasculation site for closed castration (Testicle 2) 3 (2–3) 3 (3–3) >.99
10. Testicular cord stripped down adequately (Testicle 2) 2 (1–3) 3 (2–3) .09
11. Safely cuts cord with the emasculators facing the correct direction (nut to 2 (1–2) 2 (1–3) .64
nut; Testicle 2)
12. Checks cord for bleeding before returning to body 2 (1–3) 2 (2–3) .10
Total checklist score, %, M (SD) 68.22 (9.8) 80.6 (6.0) .005
13. Tissue handling 5 (3–5) 5 (4–6) .49
14. Efficiency of time and motion 4 (3–5) 5 (4–5) .12
15. Overall GRS 5 (4–5) 5 (4–5) >.99
Note: Scale for tasks 1–12: unsatisfactory (0), borderline (1), good (2), and excellent (3), Scale for scores 13–15: very poor (1), poor (2), borderline
unsatisfactory (3), borderline satisfactory (4), good (5), and excellent (6), Significant values are in boldface.
GRS = global rating scale

or evisceration) were noticed by the farm managers in DISCUSSION

calves used for the study.
When evaluating the model, students provided mostly
positive ratings except for reporting low opinions of the
realistic feel of the materials used to make the model (three
students disagreed that the model felt real). See Figure 5
for graphical representation of student survey data.
Learning clinical skills takes practice and repetition,23 and
students’ opportunities to perform surgical bovine castration
are limited by animal availability. The results of this study
support our hypothesis that training with a model would
improve students’ performance during their first surgical
castration of a live bull calf. Students who participated in

100 JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC  doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016

https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
Figure 4:  (a) Surgical time for students performing castration on bull calves and (b) number of times the instructor assisted the
student during the surgical procedure
Note: Bar represents the mean
Student Survey of Model
4
Likert Scale
0
Landmark Ease of Encouraged
accuracy Use Correct
Steps
Figure 5:  Student survey results
Note: Bar represents median
a clinical skills laboratory in which the bovine castration
model was used had higher task-specific rubric scores and
required less assistance from the instructor during their
first live castration of a bull calf. The use of models to
teach invasive procedures is driven by the ethical concept
of the three Rs in animal use: reduce, refine, and replace.24
Improving students’ skill level before proceeding to live
animal practice demonstrates the concept of refinement.
The global score given for each student’s performance
did not differ significantly between groups, perhaps be-
cause of the small sample size and lesser statistical power
of non-parametric tests. Both checklists and global rating
scales have proven to be valid and reliable means of as-
sessing student performance.25 We also did not detect a
significant difference in surgical times between student
groups, although training with the model before performing
live castration had a medium effect size on the time it took
to perform the procedure. A larger study, ideally one that
included students from several veterinary schools, would
be required to better define the impact of model training
on duration of the procedure. In a beef production setting,
even a difference of 1 minute per bull calf over 100 head of
doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016  JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC
Tactile Increase Safety
score Learning
Ability
cattle is equivalent to 100 minutes of lost production. Given
that the most common type of castration a veterinarian may
be involved with in beef production is surgical castration,6
it is imperative that veterinary graduates be prepared to
perform this skill efficiently.
Scores generated by the task-specific rubric demonstrated
acceptable reliability. A single checklist item, evaluating the
ability of the students to exteriorize the testicles on incision
of the scrotum, was significantly higher in model-trained
students. A potential reason for this finding is that students
had learned from the model that the testicles should be-
come exteriorized after incision of the scrotum. In addition,
students may have been more comfortable using the instru-
ments to cut the scrotum, creating a better quality incision
that facilitates exteriorization of the testicles. These results
present the question as to whether the ability to strip the
fascia surrounding the testicle is necessary in the model
design. This step was consistently identified as requir-
ing improvement in model design by veterinary experts;
however, based on the student data, perhaps refining the
model to better mimic this skill is unnecessary, and it has
not been pursued as a model revision to date.
101
 Users of the model, both students and experts, responded
favorably to the model’s design and agreed that the model
would be effective to teach the skills necessary for perform-
ing a bovine castration before performing the procedure
on a live animal, which offered content validity evidence
for the use of the model. Experts and students identified
aspects of the model that could be improved, including
the creation of a more realistic spermatic cord and more
realistic anatomy, including gubernaculum and fascia that
could be stripped from the cord.
Our study had some limitations. First, students’ surgical
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
performance was digitally recorded rather than observed
in person. Rendering a three-dimensional performance into
a two-dimensional recording has the potential to affect a
rater’s accuracy. However, using recordings provides the
benefit of allowing blinded scoring that would otherwise
be impossible given the teaching responsibilities of the
large animal faculty at our institution. Indeed, we have
previously found that assessment of student surgical skills
from digital recordings with a rubric is useful and improves
flexibility of study design.26
Second, we chose to have a single rater evaluate students,
which removed inter-rater variability but did not allow for
evaluation of inter-rater reliability. An additional study
would be necessary to measure inter-rater reliability for
the rubric. Third, the study was limited by recruitment of a
small subset of veterinary students from a single institution,
which could reduce generalizability of the results to other
veterinary programs. Fourth, there was a multiple-week
lag between use of the model in the laboratory and when
students castrated live calves and completed the survey
that could possibly bias the results of the survey as a result
of misremembrance.
Last, we chose to have an instructor present to oversee
student performance during live castration and provide
coaching when necessary. Coaching was solicited by the
student or given at the point at which students might
endanger themselves or the animal. Coaching protected
animal welfare and allowed us to measure the amount of
physical assistance students required. Providing coaching
risks artificially inflating the scores of weaker students.
Competent students’ scores remain accurate because they
are allowed to perform the procedure without instructor
intervention. This tends to narrow the difference between
groups. Even with an instructor providing coaching to the
weaker students, we still found a statistically significant
difference in performance scores between traditionally
trained students and students who completed model train-
ing. The use of a coaching instructor in studies in which
students are performing invasive procedures for the first
time is important for both student and animal welfare and
has been used in other studies assessing learning by means
of live animal procedures.8,9
This study demonstrated that an easily reproducible and
cost-effective surgical bovine castration model could be
created that met the criteria of our validation framework.
Content validity evidence was provided by experts’ favor-
able ratings of the model. Veterinary students with model
training achieved higher performance scores on the live
castration than students without model training, as would
be expected if the model was valid. The rubric used to assess
102
live castration generated scores with acceptable reliability.
Use of the model for the purposes of teaching bovine cas-
tration facilitated learning of the required skills in a safe,
low-stress environment in this study. Combining practice
on a model with learner advancement that is contingent
on reaching a predetermined level of competence—the
concept of mastery learning—has been proven to enhance
patient outcomes.27 Additional research is necessary to
determine the optimal use of the bovine castration model
in teaching and assessment and how best to utilize it in
making student progression decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We acknowledge William Collingsworth for his contributions
in creating and producing the model used in this article.
REFERENCES
1 Nian Y, Allen P, Harrison SM, Kerry JP. Effect of cas-
tration and carcass suspension method on the quality
and fatty acid profile of beef from male dairy cattle.
J Sci Food Agric. 2018;98(11):4339–50. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jsfa.8960. Medline: 29430648
2 Stafford K, Mellor D. The welfare significance of the
castration of cattle: A review. N Z Vet J. 2005;53(5):271–
8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2005.36560. Med-
line: 16220117
3 Warnock TM, Thrift TA, Irsik M, Hersom MJ, et al. Ef-
fect of castration technique on beef calf performance,
feed efficiency, and inflammatory response. J Anim Sci.
2012;90(7):2345–52. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-
4511. Medline: 22247116
4 Roberts SL, Hughes HD, Burdick Sanchez NC, et al.
Effect of surgical castration with or without oral meloxi-
cam on the acute inflammatory response in yearling
beef bulls. J Anim Sci.2015;93(8):4123–31. https://doi.
org/10.2527/jas.2015-9160. Medline: 26440192
5 Moya D, González LA, Janzen E, Caulkett NA, Fire-
heller E, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS. Effects of castra-
tion method and frequency of intramuscular injections
of ketoprofen on behavioral and physiological indica-
tors of pain in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2014;92(4):1686–
97. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7298. Medline:
24663168
6 Coetzee JF, Nutsch AL, Barbur LA, Bradburn RM. A
survey of castration methods and associated livestock
management practices performed by bovine veterinar-
ians in the United States. BMC Vet Res. 2010;6(1):12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-6-12. Medline:
20199669
7 Smeak DD. Teaching surgery to the veterinary nov-
ice: the Ohio State University experience. J Vet Med
Educ. 2007;34(5):620–7. https://doi.org/10.3138/
jvme.34.5.620. Medline: 18326773
8 Read EK, Vallevand A, Farrell RM. Evaluation of vet-
erinary student surgical skills preparation for ovario-
hysterectomy using simulators: a pilot study. J Vet Med
Educ. 2016;43(2):190–213. https://doi.org/10.3138/
jvme.0815-138R1. Medline: 27111005
9 Williamson JA, Dascanio JJ, Christmann U, Johnson JW,
Rohleder B, Titus L. Development and validation of a
JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC  doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016
 model for training equine phlebotomy and intramuscular
injection skills. J Vet Med Educ. 2016;43(3):235–42. https://
doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0915-159R. Medline: 27075276
10 Fahie M, Cloke A, Lagman M, Levi O, Schmidt P. Train-
ing veterinary students to perform ovariectomy us-
ing theMOOSE Spay Model with traditional method
versus the Dowling Spay Retractor. J Vet Med Educ.
2016;43(2):176–83. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0915-
150R. Medline: 27075279
11 Knight A. The effectiveness of humane teaching methods
in veterinary education. ALTEX.2007;24(2):91–109. https://
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
doi.org/10.14573/altex.2007.2.91. Medline: 17728975
12 Smeak DD, Beck ML, Shaffer CA, Gregg CG. Evalu-
ation of video tape and a simulator for instruction of
basic surgical skills. Vet Surg. 1991;20(1):30–6. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.1991.tb00302.x. Medline:
1706899
13 Greenfield CL, Johnson AL, Arends MW, Wroblewski
AJ. Development of parenchymal abdominal organ
models for use in teaching veterinary soft tissue
surgery. Vet Surg.1993;22(5):357–62. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.1993.tb00412.x. Medline:
8236788
14 Holmberg DL, Cockshutt JR, Basher AWP. Use of a dog
abdominal surrogate for teaching surgery. J Vet Med
Educ. 1993;20(2):61–2.
15 Olsen D, Bauer MS, Seim HB, Salman MD. Evaluation
of a hemostasis model for teaching basic surgical skills.
Vet Surg. 1996;25(1):49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1532-950X.1996.tb01376.x. Medline: 8719086
16 Read EK, Hecker KG. The development and delivery
of a systematic veterinary clinical skills education pro-
gram at the University of Calgary. J Vet Sci Technol.
2013;Supplement 4:004. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-
7579.s4-004.
17 Hecker K, Read EK, Vallevand A, et al. Assessment
of first-year veterinary students’ clinical skills using
objective structured clinical examinations. J Vet Med
Educ. 2010;37(4):395–402. https://doi.org/10.3138/
jvme.37.4.395. Medline: 21135408
18 Fahie M, Cloke A, Lagman M, Levi O, Schmidt P.
Training veterinary students to perform ovariectomy
using the Moose Spay model with traditional method
versus the Dowling Spay Retractor. J Vet Med Educ.
2016;43(2):176–83. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0915-
150R. Medline: 27075279
19 Williamson J, Heydenburg M, Kelly C, Anderson S,
Dascanio J. Development and validation of a canine
castration model and rubric. J Vet Med Educ. Forth-
coming. Epub 2019 Apr 22. https://doi.org/10.3138/
jvme.1117-158r1.
20 McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH,
Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education
with deliberate practice yield better results than tradi-
tional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative
review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):706–11.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119.
Medline: 21512370
21 Kane M. An argument-based approach to valid-
ity. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(3):527–35. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527
doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016  JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC
22 Eignor DR. The standards for educational and psycho-
logical testing. In Geisinger KF, Bracken BA, Carlson JF,
et al., editors. APA handbook of testing and assessment
in psychology. Vol. 1: test theory and testing and as-
sessment in industrial and organizational psychology.
Washington (DC): American Psychological Association,
2013. p. 245–50.
23 Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and
maintenance of expert performance in medicine and re-
lated domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 Supplement):S70–
S81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200410001-
00022. Medline: 15383395
24 Russel WMS, Burch R. The principles of humane ex-
perimental technique. London: Methuen; 1959.
25 Ilgen JS, Ma IWY, Hatala R, Cook DA. A systematic
review of validity evidence for checklists versus global
rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Med
Educ. 2015;49(2):161–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/
medu.12621. Medline: 25626747
26 Williamson JA, Farrell R, Skowron C, et al. Evaluation
of a method to assess digitally recorded surgical skills
of novice veterinary students. Vet Surg. 2018;47(3):
378–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.12772. Medline:
29380866
27 Mcgaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH,
Wayne DB. Medical education featuring mastery learn-
ing with deliberate practice can lead to better health for
individuals and populations. Acad Med. 2011;86(11):e8–
e9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182308d37.
Medline: 22030671
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Stacy L. Anderson, DVM, MVSc, PhD, DACVS-LA, is Director
of Large Animal Clinical Skills and Assistant Professor of Large
Animal Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial
University, 203 DeBusk Farm Drive, Ewing,VA 24248 USA. Email:
Stacy.Anderson@lmunet.edu. Her research interests include
equine celiotomy and surgical skills training.
Lynda Miller, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, is Assistant Professor of
Theriogenology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial
University, 203 DeBusk Farm Drive, Ewing,VA 24248 USA.
Email: Lynda.Miller@lmunet.edu. Her research interests include
theriogenology and veterinary simulation.
Philippa Gibbons, BVetMed(Hons), MS, MRCVS, CertEd
DACVIM-LA, is Assistant Professor of Food Animal, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, 203 DeBusk
Farm Drive, Ewing VA, 24248 USA. Email: Phillippa.Gibbons@
lmunet.edu. Her research interests include veterinary education
and ruminant health and welfare.
Julie A. Hunt, DVM, MS, is Director of Small Animal Clinical
Skills and an Associate Professor of Clinical Skills, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, 203 DeBusk
Farm Drive, Ewing, VA 24248 USA. Email: julie.hunt@lmunet.edu.
Her research interests include veterinary clinical skills model
development and validation.
Jerry Roberson, DVM, PhD, DACVIM-LA, DABVP, is Professor
of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine,
Lincoln Memorial University, 6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway,
103
 Harrogate, TN 37752 USA. Email: Jerry.Roberson@lmunet.edu.
His research interests include food animal diseases and herd
health management.
Jeffrey A. Raines, BS, is Veterinary Student, College of Veterinary
Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, 203 DeBusk Farm Drive,
Ewing VA 24248 USA. Email: Jeffrey.Raines@lmunet.edu. His
research interests include veterinary simulation and animal
welfare.
Gil Patterson, DVM, is Program Manager, Center for Animal
and Human Health in Appalachia, and Assistant Professor of
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.2018-0016 - Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:37:06 PM - IP Address:201.185.104.51
Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln
Memorial University, 6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway, Harrogate,
TN 37752 USA. Email: Gilbert.Patterson@lmunet.edu. His
research interests include veterinary education, public health, and
agricultural development.
John J. Dascanio, VMD, DACT, DABVP, is Senior Associate
Dean for Academic and Student Affairs and Professor of
Theriogenology, Texas Tech School of Veterinary Medicine,
Amarillo, TX 79106 USA. Email: dascanioj@gmail.com. His
research interests include veterinary simulation, educational
technologies, and reproduction in all species, especially equine.
APPENDIX 1. MODEL EVALUATION SURVEY
COMPLETED BY VETERINARIANS
Please evaluate your experience with this model using a
scale of 1–5 for the following statements.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
5 = strongly agree, and NA = not applicable
1. Adequate landmark structures were present.
2. The materials looked and felt realistic.
3. The model was easy to use.
104
4. The model was suitable to teach the preparation and
steps required to perform this skill.
5. The model was suitable to give students a general idea of
the actual tactile experience when performing this skill.
6. I feel it will improve animal welfare by allowing stu-
dents to first perform the skill on this model.
7. I feel it will increase students learning ability by first
performing the skill on this model.
8. I feel that this model is adequate to assess student’s
ability to progress to performing live castration.
9. I feel students can safely utilize this model.
10. I have concerns that this model could teach students
poor technique.
Please make any positive or negative comments about
the model below.
APPENDIX 2. MODEL EVALUATION SURVEY
COMPLETED BY STUDENTS
Please evaluate your experience with this model using a
scale of 1–5 for the following statements.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
5 = strongly agree, and NA = not applicable
1. Adequate landmark structures were present.
2. The materials looked and felt realistic.
3. The model was easy to use.
4. The model was suitable to teach the preparation and
steps required to perform this skill.
5. The model was suitable to give a general idea of the
actual tactile experience when performing this skill.
6. I feel it will increase a student’s learning ability by first
performing the skill on this model.
7. I feel students can safely utilize this model.
JVME 48(1) © 2021 AAVMC  doi: 10.3138/jvme.2018-0016