ArticleBMC medical education2023
Development and validation of Simulation Scenario Quality Instrument (SSQI).
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the SMART-BPPV: a multimedia learning module for BPPV education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of the use of clinical simulators on the development of practical skills in higher education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The role of simulation-based assessments in bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- Development and validation of the QASSH scale: a tool for assessing the quality of simulation scenarios in healthcare education.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a multidisciplinary simulation training curriculum for local anesthetic systemic toxicity management: a quasi-experimental study using the Kirkpatrick model in India.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Scenario-Based Simulation for Pain Assessment and Control in a Postanesthesia Care Unit.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Development and Preliminary Validation of the Chinese Version of the Totally Implantable Venous Access Port Self-Management Behavior Scale (CPTSMBS) for Patients with Cancer.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Impact of simulation-based training on difficult airway management among anesthesia trainees and nurses as real team.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDue to the unmet need for valid instruments that evaluate critical components of simulation scenarios, this research aimed to develop and validate an instrument that measures the quality of healthcare simulation scenarios.
methodsA sequential transformative mixed-method research design was used to conduct the study. The development and validation of the instrument involved two phases: the qualitative phase, which included defining the instrument's theoretical background and instrument construction, followed by the quantitative phase, where the instrument was piloted and validated. The qualitative study included 17 healthcare simulation experts, where three focus group was conducted, and the first version of the instrument was constructed based on the focus group analysis and the theoretical framework constructed using the literature review. During the quantitative phase, the instrument's quantitative piloting included 125 healthcare simulation scenarios; then, the instrument went through construct validity and reliability testing.
resultsContent experts confirmed the theoretical model and instrument framework. The average item content validity index (I-CVI) scores and the average of the I-CVI scores (S-CVI/Ave) for all items on the scale or the average proportion relevance judged by all experts was 0.87. The conformity factor analysis results showed a good fit for the proposed 10-factor model (CFI (the comparative fit index) = 0.998, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.998, Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.061. The final instrument included ten domains: 1. Learning objectives, 2. Target group, 3. Culture, 4. Scenario case, 5. Scenario narrative briefing, 6. Scenario complexity, 7. Scenario flow, 8. Fidelity, 9. Debriefing, and 10. ASSESSMENT: The SSQI included 44 items that are rated on a 3-point scale (Meets Expectations = (2), Needs Improvement, (1), Inadequate (0)).
conclusionThis validated and reliable instrument will be helpful to healthcare educators and simulation experts who want to develop simulation-based training scenarios and ensure the quality of written scenarios.
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.