ReviewAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Assessment of simulated participant professional performance in health professional education: a scoping review.
Review 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundSimulated participants (SPs) are crucial in health professional education, offering a controlled environment for students to develop clinical, diagnostic, and communication skills. However, limited research focuses on the structured evaluation of SP competencies, a key factor for maintaining educational quality. This scoping review aims to identify and categorize the strategies, tools, and instruments used to assess simulated participants’ (SPs) performance in health professional education; examine how these approaches assess and provide feedback on SP performance; and highlight gaps in the current research and practice regarding the assessment of SPs.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and LILACS databases from 1990 to April 2025. Eligible studies included SP performance assessments at all levels of Miller’s pyramid (knowledge, application, demonstration, and action). Both qualitative and quantitative data were extracted and categorized based on the types of competencies assessed (communication, role accuracy, feedback) and the tools’ validation status. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the findings.
resultsOut of 7724 articles screened, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (75%) did not focus exclusively on SP assessment but included it in broader educational outcomes. Commonly used assessment tools were rating scales (29%) and self-perception surveys (26%), primarily measuring role-playing accuracy and communication skills. Only 40% of these tools had undergone formal validation. Additionally, the studies often lacked consistency in the criteria used for evaluating SP performance, with a heavy focus on communication and realism. At the same time, other competencies, such as providing structured feedback and adherence to case protocols, were less frequently assessed. Tools that evaluated SP feedback delivery were found in only 21% of the studies, despite the recognized importance of this skill for effective student learning. Furthermore, several studies highlighted the need for continuous SP training and reassessment to maintain high-quality performance.
conclusionsThis review identifies significant gaps in the comprehensive evaluation of SP competencies, particularly regarding the validation and standardization of assessment tools. Future research should prioritize the development of robust, validated frameworks that assess a broader range of SP skills, including feedback delivery and adherence to simulation protocols. Such advancements are essential to enhance the reliability and educational impact of SPs in health education.
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.