ArticleBMJ open2025
Self-assessment of learning outcomes in prehospital disaster response skills: instrument development and validation for mass casualty incident training.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Proactive postgraduate education in disaster medicine and preparedness for enhanced disaster management.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Can a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model Be Used to Create Mass Casualty Incident Simulation Scenarios? A Feasibility Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMeasuring the effectiveness of mass casualty incident (MCI) scenario training is challenging due to simultaneously assessing individual skills, team dynamics, decision-making under pressure and adaptability. Existing instruments often focus too narrowly on individual skills, overlooking the comprehensive range of skills needed for effective prehospital disaster response. This study aims to develop and validate a comprehensive self-assessment tool for prehospital disaster response skills during initial MCI scenario training.
designThe instrument was developed and validated using a comprehensive methodology. This included literature reviews to identify the construct, ensuring content validity through expert evaluation and conducting field trials in MCI scenario training to evaluate the instrument under simulated conditions that approximated real-life incidents. The instrument's psychometric properties were assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Horn's parallel analysis, as well as Cronbach's α and item-total correlation analysis.
settingTwo field trials conducted with participants in Sweden during 2023 and 2024.
participants75 students from a bachelor's programme at a Swedish university were recruited to participate in the field trials. The programme featured one semester of comprehensive theoretical and practical training in disaster medicine, including MCI response and management. 88 instruments were collected during the field trials.
resultsOverall Cronbach's α score was 0.86, indicating high internal consistency for the instrument. EFA and Horn's parallel analysis revealed a five-factor model accounting for 52.3% of the total variance:
conclusionsThe instrument addresses a critical gap by offering a comprehensive self-evaluation tool for disaster response skills. The robust psychometric properties indicate its potential for practical implication. Future studies should explore its application in diverse training settings and populations to enhance its utility and generalisability.A comprehensive development and validation methodology ensured the high content validity of the instrument.
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.