Table 5.
Descriptive data, t-test and effect sizes (d) of differences between two evaluation strategies for each item of clinical simulation satisfaction questionnaire (n = 218)
| Scale | Formative evaluation (n = 106) |
Summative evaluation (n = 112) |
t(1,217) | Sig. | Effect size (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) |
Mean (SD) |
||||
| 1. Facilities and equipment were real | 4.41 (0.598) | 4.03 (0.963) | 4.593 | .001 | .379 |
| 2. Objectives were clear cases | 4.47 (0.665) | 3.85 (1.125) | 14.602 | <.001 | .623 |
| 3. Cases recreated real situations | 4.83 (0.425) | 4.36 (0.919) | 59.431 | <.001 | .473 |
| 4. Timing for each simulation case has been adequate | 4.16 (1.025) | 3.05 (1.387) | 12.403 | <.001 | 1.107 |
| 5. The degree of cases difficulty was appropriate to my knowledge. | 4.46 (0.650) | 4.21 (0.650) | 5.138 | .013 | .257 |
| 6. I felt comfortable and respected during the sessions | 4.80 (0.486) | 4.30 (0.966) | 55.071 | <.001 | .498 |
| 7. Clinical simulation is useful to assess a patient’s clinical simulation | 4.80 (0.446) | 4.18 (0.922) | 39.435 | <.001 | .623 |
| 8. Simulation practices help you learn to avoid mistakes | 4.83 (0.402) | 4.38 (0.903) | 77.077 | <.001 | .446 |
| 9. Simulation has helped me to set priorities for action | 4.72 (0.530) | 4.19 (0.925) | 19.479 | <.001 | .529 |
| 10. Simulation has improved my ability to provide care to my patients | 4.58 (0.647) | 3.87 (1.061) | 14.514 | <.001 | .709 |
| 11. Simulation has made me think about my next clinical practice | 4.78 (0.478) | 4.39 (0.820) | 38.654 | <.001 | .390 |
| 12. Simulation improves communication and teamwork | 4.69 (0.541) | 4.35 (0.946) | 27.701 | .001 | .340 |
| 13. Simulation has made me more aware/worried about clinical practice | 3.73 (1.231) | 4.77 (.849) | 12.09 | <.001 | -.947 |
| 14. Simulation is beneficial to relate theory to practice | 4.79 (0.407) | 4.30 (0.837) | 54.177 | <.001 | .489 |
| 15. Simulation allows us to plan the patient care effectively | 4.44 (0.677) | 4.21 (0.840) | 1.055 | .022 | .238 |
| 16. I have improved my technical skills | 4.16 (0.758) | 3.76 (1.109) | 15.460 | .002 | .401 |
| 17. I have reinforced my critical thinking and decision-making | 4.41 (0.644) | 4.00 (1.048) | 7.997 | .001 | .406 |
| 18. Simulation helped me assess patient’s condition | 4.48 (0.651) | 4.17 (0.994) | 6.253 | .007 | .311 |
| 19. This experience has helped me prioritise care | 4.63 (0.574) | 4.03 (1.035) | 19.021 | <.001 | .605 |
| 20. Simulation promotes self-confidence | 4.41 (0.714) | 3.90 (1.178) | 12.818 | <.001 | .504 |
| 21. I have improved communication with the team | 4.56 (0.663) | 4.29 (0.946) | 7.803 | .018 | .262 |
| 22. I have improved communication with the family | 2.65 (1.487) | 2.77 (1.381) | 5.693 | .543 | -.115 |
| 23. I have improved communication with the patient | 4.05 (0.970) | 3.93 (1.191) | 2.187 | .420 | .119 |
| 24. This type of practice has increased my assertiveness | 4.40 (0.699) | 3.75 (1.234) | 25.553 | <.001 | .649 |
| 25. I lost calm during any of the cases | 3.09 (1.559) | 3.22 (1.559) | .032 | .539 | -.129 |
| 26. Interaction with simulation has improved my clinical competence | 4.36 (0.679) | 3.81 (1.070) | 12.397 | <.001 | .546 |
| 27. The teacher gave constructive feedback after each session | 4.79 (0.430) | 4.47 (0.880) | 43.147 | .001 | .319 |
| 28. Debriefing has helped me reflect on the cases | 4.79 (0.492) | 4.30 (0.858) | 40.809 | <.001 | .489 |
| 29. Debriefing at the end of the session has helped me correct mistakes | 4.77 (0.522) | 4.21 (0.988) | 51.719 | <.001 | .568 |
| 30. I knew the cases theoretical side | 4.70 (0.501) | 4.33 (0.884) | 26.761 | <.001 | .368 |
| 31. I have learned from the mistakes I made during the simulation | 4.79 (0.407) | 4.39 (0.914) | 46.949 | <.001 | .400 |
| 32. Practical utility | 4.78 (0.414) | 4.15 (1.076) | 45.375 | <.001 | .631 |
| 33. Overall satisfaction of sessions | 4.92 (0.312) | 4.06 (1.016) | 79.288 | <.001 | .953 |