ArticleMedical education online2025
Development and validation of the QASSH scale: a tool for assessing the quality of simulation scenarios in healthcare education.
Article in Medical education online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of simulated participant professional performance in health professional education: a scoping review.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulation-based education has become essential for pre- and post-graduate training of healthcare professionals. However, there is no tool to help simulation educators or program managers in assessing the educational quality of simulation scenario scripts for team-based immersive simulation (IS), simulated participants (SP) and procedural simulation (PS). To that end, we developed the Quality Assessment of Simulation Scenario in Healthcare (QASSH) tool. This study aims at providing validity evidence for QASSH. We set up a francophone group of experts within the French-speaking Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SoFraSimS) network and designed this scale based on recently published best practices and our long experience in conceiving simulation scenarios. We tested it by submitting three scenarios of high, borderline and low quality for assessment to a group of experts, a third of which were involved in its development. Analysis of reliability and validity of the QASSH was done using the Standards for educational and psychological testing. Generalizability theory (GT) was used to assess the internal structure and reliability of the tool. The absolute reliability coefficients (G coefficients) calculated through GT were: 0.97 (IS), 0.96 (SP), and 0.98 (PS). G-facet analyses showed that no removal of a single item of QASSH significantly increased the G coefficient above 0.01 for any of the three variants. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.94 (IS), 0.94 (SP) and 0.97 (PS). Estimating the impact of the number of raters on reliability (i.e. D-studies) showed that two raters were enough to achieve a G coefficient above 0.85. The G study shows a high generalizability coefficient (≥0.90), which demonstrates high reliability. The response process evidence for validity provides evidence that no error was associated with using the instrument and its reliability was high with two raters. The QASSH is a tool to assess the quality of healthcare simulation scenarios and will be helpful to instructors wishing to build effective IS, PS and SPs 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.