The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP)
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we define the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) for those working with human role players who interact with learners in a wide range of experiential learning and assessment contexts. These human role players are variously described by such terms as standardized/simulated patients or simulated participants (SP or SPs). ASPE is a global organization whose mission is to share advances in SP-based pedagogy, assessment, research, and scholarship as well as support the professional development of its members. The SOBP are intended to be used in conjunction with the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL) Standards of Best Practice: Simulation SM , which address broader simulation practices. We begin by providing a rationale for the creation of the ASPE SOBP, noting that with the increasing use of simulation in healthcare training, it is incumbent on ASPE to establish SOBP that ensure the growth, integrity, and safe application of SP-based educational endeavors. We then describe the three and a half year process through which these standards were developed by a consensus of international experts in the field. Key terms used throughout the document are defined. Five underlying values inform the SOBP: safety, quality, professionalism, accountability, and collaboration. Finally, we describe five domains of best practice: safe work environment; case development; SP training for role portrayal, feedback, and completion of assessment instruments; program management; and professional development. Each domain is divided into principles with accompanying key practices that provide clear and practical guidelines for achieving desired outcomes and creating simulations that are safe for all stakeholders. Failure to follow the ASPE SOBP could compromise the safety of participants and the effectiveness of a simulation session. Care has been taken to make these guidelines precise yet flexible enough to address the diversity of varying contexts of SP practice. As a living document, these SOBP will be reviewed and modified periodically under the direction of the ASPE Standards of Practice Committee as SP methodology grows and adapts to evolving simulation practices.
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
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.
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?
The SP approach mitigated the Hawthorne effect and ensured unbiased observations regarding whether pharmacies asked relevant questions or provided adequate counselling.
“By simulating real world patient interactions for conditions like URI and UAD, the SP approach offered valuable insights while mitigating the Hawthorne effect. This ensured unbiased observations regarding whether pharmacies asked relevant questions, or provided adequate counselling.”
From Evaluation of antibiotic dispensing without prescription by community pharmacies: a simulated patient study (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Domain 3: SP training says standardized patients can observe behavior during encounters and document performance using assessment instruments. The paper does not address pharmacy counselling or questioning, the Hawthorne effect, or whether SP observations are unbiased; it discusses assessment chiefly in educational settings. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 580
- Authors
- Lewis, K. L., Bohnert, C. A., Gammon, W. L., Hölzer, H., Lyman, L., Smith, C., Thompson, T. M., Wallace, A., & Gliva-McConvey, G.
- Affiliations
- George Washington University (US)
- University of Louisville (US)
- Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (DE)
- Sentara Norfolk General Hospital (US)
- Baycrest Academy for Research and Education (CA)
- Arkansas Children's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lewis, Karen L.
- Venue
- Advances in Simulation
- Published
- 2017-06-27
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-10
- ISSN
- 2059-0628 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5806371
- OpenAlex
- W2728785574
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 25.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Advances in Simulation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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
- standardized patients, simulation-based education, case development, standardized patient training, simulation-based assessment, professional development
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