Included orthodontic simulation studies evaluated outcomes only at Kirkpatrick reaction and learning levels, never at behaviour or results levels¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · 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.
q3 i? Of the 16 included publications, two experiments reported positive learning outcomes at the learning level and four studies reported outcome evaluation at the reaction level. → SIPIYARUK Kawin 2023
q3 i? None of the included articles evaluated learning outcomes at the behaviour or results levels of the Kirkpatrick model. → SIPIYARUK Kawin 2023 (2)
Evidence¶
SIPIYARUK Kawin 2023¶
SIPIYARUK Kawin, KAEWSIRIRAT Prachworrakit, SANTIWONG Peerapong. (2023). Technology-enhanced simulation-based learning in orthodontic education: A scoping review. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.28.3.e2321354.oar
q3 · i? · review · r3
The review's own synthesis classifying all 16 included publications by Kirkpatrick outcome-evaluation level, finding evaluations only at reaction and learning levels across the corpus.
"When considering the 16 included publications according to the Kirkpatrick model, 40 two experiments reported positive learning outcomes from the evaluation at a learning level. 27 , 30 Four studies positively demonstrated the outcome evaluation focusing on a reaction level."
SIPIYARUK Kawin 2023 (2)¶
SIPIYARUK Kawin, KAEWSIRIRAT Prachworrakit, SANTIWONG Peerapong. (2023). Technology-enhanced simulation-based learning in orthodontic education: A scoping review. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.28.3.e2321354.oar
q3 · i? · review · r3
The review reports that across all 16 included articles no study evaluated outcomes at the behaviour or results levels, which the authors call significant impact levels of simulation development.
"None of the articles performed the evaluation of learning outcomes at behaviour and results levels."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Four reviewed studies showed e-learning changed student study behaviour, including increased time invested in studying course subjects — related
- Evidence for technology-enhanced basic robotic skills training is concentrated at Kirkpatrick level 2, with no studies reporting transfer to operative behaviour or patient outcomes — related
- Reviewed peer-tutoring simulation studies mostly reached only Kirkpatrick Level 2, with no assessment of behavior change or clinical-practice results — related
- Simulation training reached Kirkpatrick level 3 (behavioral change) in five studies, but no study assessed patient outcomes — related
- Korean simulation-based IPE studies report high satisfaction but concentrate on Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2, with no study measuring level 4 training efficacy — related
- Across Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2, most studies found no statistically significant differences between observer and active participant roles in simulation-based education — related
- Trainees and observers reported generally positive experiences with seven tools in 10 studies (Kirkpatrick level 1) — related
- No included WBA feedback study demonstrated improved learning and performance as a direct result of WBA (Kirkpatrick Level 4); the highest level reached was Level 3 — related
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.