CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,966Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareSurgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 202 of the 203 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review

Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, William C., Petrusa, Emil R., Lee Gordon, David, Scalese, Ross J.·2005·Medical Teacher
DOI 10.1080/01421590500046924
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

REVIEW DATE: 1969 to 2003, 34 years. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Simulations are now in widespread use in medical education and medical personnel evaluation. Outcomes research on the use and effectiveness of simulation technology in medical education is scattered, inconsistent and varies widely in methodological rigor and substantive focus. OBJECTIVES: Review and synthesize existing evidence in educational science that addresses the question, 'What are the features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to most effective learning?'. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search covered five literature databases (ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Timelit) and employed 91 single search terms and concepts and their Boolean combinations. Hand searching, Internet searches and attention to the 'grey literature' were also used. The aim was to perform the most thorough literature search possible of peer-reviewed publications and reports in the unpublished literature that have been judged for academic quality. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Four screening criteria were used to reduce the initial pool of 670 journal articles to a focused set of 109 studies: (a) elimination of review articles in favor of empirical studies; (b) use of a simulator as an educational assessment or intervention with learner outcomes measured quantitatively; (c) comparative research, either experimental or quasi-experimental; and (d) research that involves simulation as an educational intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted systematically from the 109 eligible journal articles by independent coders. Each coder used a standardized data extraction protocol. DATA SYNTHESIS: Qualitative data synthesis and tabular presentation of research methods and outcomes were used. Heterogeneity of research designs, educational interventions, outcome measures and timeframe precluded data synthesis using meta-analysis. HEADLINE RESULTS: Coding accuracy for features of the journal articles is high. The extant quality of the published research is generally weak. The weight of the best available evidence suggests that high-fidelity medical simulations facilitate learning under the right conditions. These include the following: providing feedback--51 (47%) journal articles reported that educational feedback is the most important feature of simulation-based medical education; repetitive practice--43 (39%) journal articles identified repetitive practice as a key feature involving the use of high-fidelity simulations in medical education; curriculum integration--27 (25%) journal articles cited integration of simulation-based exercises into the standard medical school or postgraduate educational curriculum as an essential feature of their effective use; range of difficulty level--15 (14%) journal articles address the importance of the range of task difficulty level as an important variable in simulation-based medical education; multiple learning strategies--11 (10%) journal articles identified the adaptability of high-fidelity simulations to multiple learning strategies as an important factor in their educational effectiveness; capture clinical variation--11 (10%) journal articles cited simulators that capture a wide variety of clinical conditions as more useful than those with a narrow range; controlled environment--10 (9%) journal articles emphasized the importance of using high-fidelity simulations in a controlled environment where learners can make, detect and correct errors without adverse consequences; individualized learning--10 (9%) journal articles highlighted the importance of having reproducible, standardized educational experiences where learners are active participants, not passive bystanders; defined outcomes--seven (6%) journal articles cited the importance of having clearly stated goals with tangible outcome measures that will more likely lead to learners mastering skills; simulator validity--four (3%) journal articles provided evidence for the direct correlation of simulation validity with effective learning. CONCLUSIONS: While research in this field needs improvement in terms of rigor and quality, high-fidelity medical simulations are educationally effective and simulation-based education complements medical education in patient care settings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01421590500046924

Cites

202 of 202 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ericsson K.A., 1994, its structure and acquisition, American Psychologist, 49, pp. 725
  2. Ericsson K.A., 1996, evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints, Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp. 273
  3. Harden R.M., 1999, Best Evidence Medical Education, Medical Teacher, 21, pp. 553
  4. McGaghie W.C, 1999, Simulation in professional competence assess-ment: basic considerations
  5. Seligman J, 1997, more than 50 years after a tragic wartime jump, George Bush has a happier landing, Newsweek, 129, p. 68
  6. Wolf F.M, 2000, practice and promise of evidence-based education, Medical Teacher, 22, pp. 251

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,966

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
ORCID
Venue
Medical Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
10-28
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
DOI
10.1080/01421590500046924
OpenAlex
W2162661914
Cited by
3,966
References
203
Citations by year
2026: 311 · 2025: 239 · 2024: 194 · 2023: 177 · 2022: 198 · 2021: 245 · 2020: 224 · 2019: 233 · 2018: 191 · 2017: 178 · 2016: 227 · 2015: 252 · 2014: 199 · 2013: 233 · 2012: 190
FWCI
9.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
high-fidelity simulation, simulation-based medical education, medical education, instructional feedback, repeated practice, curriculum integration, task difficulty, student outcomes, research quality, graduate medical education, student motivation, learner confidence, student self-efficacy, student self-assessment, student self-regulation, learner autonomy
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Humans, Research Design, Software, Patient Simulation, Total Quality Management, Medical Errors

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