How to Conduct Usability Testing of Medical Education Simulations: Methods Tutorial Using a Telemedicine Simulation for Maternal Care.

backgroundClinical educators regularly use simulation-based education to help learners develop clinical reasoning, procedural skills, and communication strategies. However, differences between simulated and live clinical environments, such as missing case details or workflow interruptions, can reduce realism and divert learners' attention from the intended learning goals. While published design guidelines recommend pilot testing simulations, they do not explain how to systematically identify usability problems. Human factors evaluation methods can address this gap by identifying issues before piloting and providing design insights.

objectiveThis tutorial describes our usability testing protocol for evaluating educational simulations before piloting with learners. Using a telemedicine maternal care simulation as an example, we show how mixed methods usability testing can identify technical, workflow, and assessment-related issues in simulation design.

methodsWe recruited obstetricians and family practitioners to test our simulation. To measure multiple usability dimensions concurrently, we used several published instruments, including an Agile Task Analysis (ATA), the Single Ease Question (SEQ), an adapted System Usability Scale (SUS), the Satisfaction With Simulation Experience Scale (SSES), and the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). We also developed a competency assessment rubric to measure telemedicine competencies. We recorded observations on the ATA while testers used a think-aloud protocol. We then debriefed testers and administered the posttest questionnaires. We summarized quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analyzed qualitative data using theory-based deductive coding with published usability heuristics.

resultsTwelve testers identified 52 usability issues over 2 testing cycles; 15 issues required correction before piloting with learners. Revisions included changes to standardized patient scripts, synthetic patient data, and scoring rubric instructions. Testers assigned a median SEQ score of 6 or higher to 4 of the 6 workflow steps; most struggled with unfamiliar telemedicine tasks or completing a virtual physical examination. SUS scores ranged from 65 to 100. The median SUS score was 77.5, indicating above-average usability. The NASA-TLX subscale scores were highest for mental workload (median 60, IQR 56.3-63.8) compared with other subscales, such as physical or temporal workload (median 15.00, IQR 11.3-18.8 and median 20.00, IQR 11.3-43.8, respectively), suggesting the simulation imposed a high mental demand. The overall SSES score of 43.5 out of 50 suggested faculty testers thought the simulation offered valuable learning opportunities.

conclusionsFollowing usability testing, we successfully piloted the simulation with 23 obstetrics and family medicine residents without encountering any implementation issues. Incorporating usability evaluation methods throughout the simulation development life cycle helped identify and mitigate design problems that might otherwise limit simulation fidelity and instructional effectiveness. Our tutorial showcases a modular mixed methods approach that can be adapted to study a range of simulation types and research questions related to workflow, technology, and learning objectives.