Effect sizes are larger for high-fidelity simulation, medium-fidelity simulation, and standardized patients than for low-fidelity and hybrid simulation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In the fidelity subgroup analysis, HFS (0.86), MFS (1.03), and SP (0.86) showed larger effect sizes than LFS (0.35) and hybrid (0.34) simulation. → Kim Junghee 2016

Evidence¶

Kim Junghee 2016¶

Kim Junghee, Park Jin-Hwa, Shin Sujin. (2016). Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analysis of the 40-study meta-analysis comparing effect sizes by fidelity level as coded from the physical equipment used. The results section reports HFS ES = 0.86, MFS ES = 1.03, and SP ES = 0.86, stating "HFSs (0.86), MFSs (1.03), and SPs (0.86) had large effect sizes" while low-fidelity (0.35) and hybrid (0.34) studies had smaller ones.

"Studies using HFSs (0.86), MFSs (1.03), and SPs (0.86) had large effect sizes, whereas low-fidelity (0.35) and hybrid (0.34) simulation studies had smaller effect sizes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For affective outcomes, high-fidelity simulation (0.80) and standardized patients (0.73) show the largest effect sizes — related
• For psychomotor outcomes, medium-fidelity simulation (1.76), standardized patients (1.27), and high-fidelity simulation (1.03) show the largest effect sizes — related
• For cognitive outcomes, high-fidelity simulation shows the largest effect size (0.50) — related
• For reaction outcomes (satisfaction and learning attitudes), high-fidelity simulation shows a larger effect size than low-fidelity simulation — related