ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2023
The Debriefing Assessment in Real Time (DART) tool for simulation-based medical education.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Meta-debrief: Developing a Toolbox for Debriefing the Debrief.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2025Article
- Localizing and Tailoring the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare to Optimize Fit.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDebriefing is crucial for enhancing learning following healthcare simulation. Various validated tools have been shown to have contextual value for assessing debriefers. The Debriefing Assessment in Real Time (DART) tool may offer an alternative or additional assessment of conversational dynamics during debriefings.
methodsThis is a multi-method international study investigating reliability and validity. Enrolled raters (n = 12) were active simulation educators. Following tool training, the raters were asked to score a mixed sample of debriefings. Descriptive statistics are recorded, with coefficient of variation (CV%) and Cronbach's α used to estimate reliability. Raters returned a detailed reflective survey following their contribution. Kane's framework was used to construct validity arguments.
resultsThe 8 debriefings (μ = 15.4 min (SD 2.7)) included 45 interdisciplinary learners at various levels of training. Reliability (mean CV%) for key components was as follows: instructor questions μ = 14.7%, instructor statements μ = 34.1%, and trainee responses μ = 29.0%. Cronbach α ranged from 0.852 to 0.978 across the debriefings. Post-experience responses suggested that DARTs can highlight suboptimal practices including unqualified lecturing by debriefers.
conclusionThe DART demonstrated acceptable reliability and may have a limited role in assessment of healthcare simulation debriefing. Inherent complexity and emergent properties of debriefing practice should be accounted for when using this tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.