Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26433730›Full record

Trial reportAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2016

An experimental study on the effects of a simulation game on students' clinical cognitive skills and motivation.

Mary E W Dankbaar, Jelmer Alsma, Els E H Jansen, Jeroen J G van Merrienboer, Jan L C M van Saase, Stephanie C E Schuit

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mary E W DankbaarInstitute of Medical Education Research, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Room Ae-234, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.dankbaar@erasmusmc.nl.
Jelmer AlsmaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Els E H JansenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen J G van MerrienboerSchool of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jan L C M van SaaseDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stephanie C E SchuitDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation games are becoming increasingly popular in education, but more insight in their critical design features is needed. This study investigated the effects of fidelity of open patient cases in adjunct to an instructional e-module on students' cognitive skills and motivation. We set up a three-group randomized post-test-only design: a control group working on an e-module; a cases group, combining the e-module with low-fidelity text-based patient cases, and a game group, combining the e-module with a high-fidelity simulation game with the same cases. Participants completed questionnaires on cognitive load and motivation. After a 4-week study period, blinded assessors rated students' cognitive emergency care skills in two mannequin-based scenarios. In total 61 students participated and were assessed; 16 control group students, 20 cases students and 25 game students. Learning time was 2 h longer for the cases and game groups than for the control group. Acquired cognitive skills did not differ between groups. The game group experienced higher intrinsic and germane cognitive load than the cases group (p = 0.03 and 0.01) and felt more engaged (p < 0.001). Students did not profit from working on open cases (in adjunct to an e-module), which nonetheless challenged them to study longer. The e-module appeared to be very effective, while the high-fidelity game, although engaging, probably distracted students and impeded learning. Medical educators designing motivating and effective skills training for novices should align case complexity and fidelity with students' proficiency level. The relation between case-fidelity, motivation and skills development is an important field for further study.

Indexed as

CognitionGames, ExperimentalMotivationClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalYoung AdultCognitive loadCognitive skillsFidelityMotivationSimulation game

Identifiers

PMID26433730
PMCPMC4923100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.