Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41821072›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026

Adapting the TeamSTEPPS team performance observation tool for dyadic interprofessional VR simulations (vTPOT): a multi-step validation study.

Marie Lehmann, Stefanie Hinz, Alexander Zamzow, Jan Mikulasch, Horst Poimann, Joy Backhaus, Marvin Mergen, Tobias Mühling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Marie LehmannInstitute of Medical Teaching and Medical Education Research, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 2, Würzburg, 97080, Germany.
Stefanie HinzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Caritas Hospital Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Alexander ZamzowInstitute of Medical Teaching and Medical Education Research, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 2, Würzburg, 97080, Germany.
Jan MikulaschDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Horst PoimannTeamSTEPPS Committee for German-Speaking Countries, Würzburg, Germany.
Joy BackhausInstitute of Medical Teaching and Medical Education Research, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 2, Würzburg, 97080, Germany.
Marvin MergenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Saarbrücken Medical Center, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Tobias MühlingInstitute of Medical Teaching and Medical Education Research, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 2, Würzburg, 97080, Germany. muehling_t@ukw.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterprofessional teamwork is a key determinant of patient safety in medical emergencies, yet its structured assessment remains resource-intensive and is rarely integrated into undergraduate curricula. Immersive virtual reality (VR) offers scalable environments for training and assessing teamwork but introduces contextual constraints such as dyadic team structures, avatar-mediated interaction, and limited non-verbal cues. Established assessment tools, including the Team Performance Observation Tool (TPOT), have not been systematically adapted or validated for these VR-specific conditions.

methodsWe adapted the TPOT for dyadic VR-based emergency simulations (vTPOT) through expert-driven item revision, development of behavioral anchors, and a two-round modified Delphi process with 15 interprofessional experts. No new VR-specific items were introduced, instead, items that could not be meaningfully observed in immersive VR were removed or consolidated to preserve conceptual stability. Five trained raters independently evaluated 21 VR simulation videos from interprofessional dyads (medical and nursing students) using both the original TPOT and the vTPOT. Following Kane’s argument-based validation framework, we examined evidence for scoring (content validity, association with the original TPOT), generalization (internal consistency, interrater reliability), extrapolation (associations with teamwork perceptions and objective medical performance), and implications (written qualitative responses from raters) on potential unintended effects and implications for feedback and assessment).

resultsThe final vTPOT comprises 15 behaviorally anchored items across five teamwork domains. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.92), and interrater reliability was moderate to substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68). vTPOT scores showed strong convergence with the original TPOT (r = 0.92) and with participants’ teamwork perceptions (T-TPQ; ρ = 0.64 and 0.80 for nursing and medical students, respectively). Higher vTPOT scores were positively associated with objectively measured medical performance in VR scenarios (r = 0.54). Raters reported that the vTPOT supported structured observation and feedback, while also highlighting context-specific limitations and potential unintended effects.

conclusionsThe vTPOT appears to be a feasible and reliable instrument for assessing interprofessional teamwork in dyadic VR simulations within the studied context. Initial validity evidence supports its intended use for low-stakes assessment and research. Further studies are needed to examine construct structure and extend validation to additional contexts, populations, and outcomes to strengthen the overall validity argument.

Indexed as

argument-based validationemergency medicine educationInterprofessional teamworkmedical simulationTeam Performance Observation ToolTeamSTEPPSTPOTvalidity evidencevirtual realityvTPOT

Identifiers

PMID41821072
PMCPMC13023181

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.