Cited by 88Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareInnovations in Medical EducationSurgical Simulation and Training

Simulation-based medical education is no better than problem-based discussions and induces misjudgment in self-assessment

Wenk, Manuel, Waurick, René, Schotes, David, Wenk, Melanie, Gerdes, Christina, Van Aken, Hugo K., Pöpping, Daniel M.·2009·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Simulation-based teaching (SBT) is increasingly used in medical education. As an alternative to other teaching methods there is a lack of evidence concerning its efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potency of SBT in anesthesia in comparison to problem-based discussion (PBD) with students in a randomized controlled setting. Thirty-three fourth-year medical students attending a curricular anesthesiology course were randomly allocated to either a session of SBT or a session of PBD on an emergency induction method. Ten days later all students underwent examination in a simulator. The performance of each student was evaluated by weighted tasks, established according to a modified Delphi process. Confidence and a multiple-choice questionnaire were additionally performed pre- and post-intervention. A total of 32 students completed the study. Participants in the SBT group presented with significantly higher self-assessment scores after the intervention than students in the PBD group. However, students in the SBT group achieved only slightly and statistically insignificantly higher scores in the theoretical and simulator examination (p > 0.05) with only a moderate effect size of d = 0.52. The current study demonstrates that both PBD and SBT lead to comparable short-term outcomes in theoretical knowledge and clinical skills. However, undesirably, SBT students overrated their anticipated clinical abilities and knowledge improvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-008-9098-2

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wenk, M., Waurick, R., Schotes, D., Wenk, M., Gerdes, C., Van Aken, H. K., & Pöpping, D. M.
Affiliations
University Hospital Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Wenk, Manuel
  • Wenk, Melanie
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2008-01-24
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
159-171
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W2080688492
Cited by
88
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
simulation-based medical education, anesthesiology education, self-assessment, overconfidence, medical students, clinical skills, theoretical knowledge, teaching methods comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anesthesiology, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Computer Simulation, Delphi Technique, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review