Claims

Reviewed peer-tutoring simulation studies mostly reached only Kirkpatrick Level 2, with no assessment of behavior change or clinical-practice results

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The highest Kirkpatrick level achieved among the reviewed studies was Level 2, reported in nine out of ten studies assessing knowledge, skills, and attitudes; one study reached only Level 1, evaluating participant reaction exclusively. → Bertiola-Flores Claudio 2026

Evidence

Bertiola-Flores Claudio 2026

Bertiola-Flores Claudio, Infante-Villagrán Valeria Aylin, Palma-Vidal Natalia, Ferrada-Peña Claudio, Mazzo Alessandra, Díaz-Guio Diego Andrés. (2026). Peer tutoring in clinical simulation for health sciences education: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09582-0

q2 · i? · review · r2

Review analysis of intervention outcomes by Kirkpatrick level across the included studies, finding no study reached Levels 3 or 4. The quote states "nine out of ten studies" reached Level 2 in the review's own words.

"the highest level achieved among the reviewed studies was Level 2, reported in nine out of ten studies, which assessed knowledge, skills, and attitudes [31–40]. The remaining study reached only Level 1"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.