Claims

Nursing students express positive perception of preclinical maternity simulation sessions, with objectives and information rated highest and fidelity/realism rated lowest

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Students agreed that the objectives of the simulation were clear (m = 4.14, SD = 0.59) and that it was appropriate to their level (m = 4.09, SD = 0.79), while fidelity items received the lowest agreement. → ALFozan et al. 2015

Evidence

ALFozan et al. 2015

Haya ALFozan, Yousria El Sayed, Farida Habib. (2015). Designing, Implementing and Evaluating Preclinical Simulation Lab for Maternity Nursing Course. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.6, No.12. https://www.iiste.org/journals/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Post-rotation questionnaire study of 64 maternity nursing students using Jeffries' (2005) 20-item five-point Likert perception scale across five categories. Students agreed there was "enough information provided at the beginning of simulation"; fidelity items drew the least agreement, with only 75% agreeing the scenario resembled a real-life situation.

"Participants expressed positive perception toward the simulation-based sessions. Regarding objective and information 92.2% of the students agreed that there was enough information provided at the beginning of simulation (M = 4.08, S D = 0.7o)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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