For affective outcomes, high-fidelity simulation (0.80) and standardized patients (0.73) show the largest effect sizes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 For affective outcomes, HFS (0.80) and SP (0.73) had the largest effect sizes, whereas LFS (0.39) and hybrid (0.35) studies had smaller ones. → 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 · r2

Subgroup analysis of affective learning outcomes by fidelity level in the 40-study meta-analysis (Table 4). The affective effect sizes were HFS ES = 0.80 and SP ES = 0.73; the results section reports "HFS (0.80) and SP (0.73) had the largest effect sizes" for the affective domain, with LFS and hybrid smaller.

"Regarding affective outcome, HFS (0.80) and SP (0.73) had the largest effect sizes, whereas LFS (0.39) and hybrid (0.35) simulation studies had smaller effect sizes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Effect sizes are larger for high-fidelity simulation, medium-fidelity simulation, and standardized patients than for low-fidelity and hybrid simulation — related
• For reaction outcomes (satisfaction and learning attitudes), high-fidelity simulation shows a larger effect size than low-fidelity simulation — 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