Table 1. Values of the Modified Kappa Coefficient for each of the items evaluated in the clinical simulation scenarios (N = 11). Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, 2021.
| Index | Scenario 1 * | Scenario 2† |
|---|---|---|
| Objectives | ||
| Consistency of content with objectives | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Clear and concise learning objectives | 0.81 | 1.00 |
| Content facilitates critical thinking | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Problem resolution | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Expected results | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Objectives instigate changes in professional behavior and attitude | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Structure/Presentation | ||
| Support provided to the candidate | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Target Audience | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Educational Practice | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Scenario fidelity | 0.81 | 0.90 |
| Clues | 0.90 | 0.90 |
| Debriefing | 0.90 | 0.90 |
| briefing | 0.90 | 1.00 |
| Case summary | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Script | 0.81 | 0.81 |
| Materials and equipment | 0.90 | 1.00 |
| Check list | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Scenario title | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Scientifically correct information | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Logical sequence of content | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Information covers content on Infusion Therapy | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Appropriate script for nurses | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Language that is easy for the target audience to understand | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Attractive view of the scenery | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Data presented in a structured and objective way | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Relevance | ||
| Important content for the quality of care provided | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Form of presentation contributes to the learning of nurses | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Contextual details provide clues based on desired outcomes | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Patient profile provides sufficient data for clinical judgment | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Scenario allows the transfer of knowledge in relation to the topic | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Theme portrays key aspects in relation to clinical practice | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Model allows learning in different contexts | 0.90 | 0.90 |
| Roadmap proposes the construction of knowledge | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Use by healthcare professionals and/or educators | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Scenarios can circulate in the scientific community of the area | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| General evaluation indicators | ||
| Adequacy of the intervention for the development of clinical judgment on the subject | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Feasibility of the intervention | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Adequacy of the intervention with undergraduate students | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Adequacy of the intervention at the level of specialization | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Note:
*
Scenario 1 - Patient assessment and vascular device selection; †Scenario 2 - Identification and management of deep vein thrombosis.