The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation‐based medical education
Abstract
Objectives This report synthesises a subset of 31 journal articles on high‐fidelity simulation‐based medical education containing 32 research studies drawn from a larger qualitative review published previously. These studies were selected because they present adequate data to allow for quantitative synthesis. We hypothesised an association between hours of practice in simulation‐based medical education and standardised learning outcomes measured as weighted effect sizes. Methods Journal articles were screened using 5 exclusion and inclusion criteria. Response data were extracted and 3 judges independently coded each study. Learning outcomes were standardised using a common metric, the average weighted effect size (AWES), due to the heterogeneity of response measures in individual studies. anova was used to evaluate AWES differences due to hours of practice on a high‐fidelity medical simulator cast in 5 categories. The eta squared (η 2 ) statistic was used to assess the association between AWES and simulator practice hours. Results There is a strong association (η 2 = 0.46) between hours of practice on high‐fidelity medical simulators and standardised learning outcomes. The association approximates a dose–response relationship. Conclusions Hours of high‐fidelity simulator practice have a positive, functional relationship with standardised learning outcomes in medical education. More rigorous research methods and more stringent journal editorial policies are needed to advance this field of medical education research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
Self-citationEricsson, K. A. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022 · Cited by 2,988
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
Cited by
Cook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., Erwin, P. J., & Hamstra, S. J. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1234 · Cited by 2,170
A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x · Cited by 1,733
Self-citationThe Utility of Simulation in Medical Education: What Is the Evidence?
Okuda, Y., Bryson, E. O., DeMaria, S., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., Shen, B., & Levine, A. I. (2009) · Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine · doi:10.1002/msj.20127 · Cited by 1,201
Cook, D. A., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., Erwin, P. J., & Hatala, R. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.714886 · Cited by 709
Ericsson, K. A. (2015) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000939 · Cited by 542
Metadata
- Authors
- McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07-27
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 792-797
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2129695982
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation‐based medical education. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02528.x
- The paper
- McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2006). Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation‐based medical education. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02528.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.