The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Online Learning versus Simulation for Teaching Principles of Mechanical Ventilation to Nurse Practitioner Students
Abstract
Patient simulation is increasingly used in the education of healthcare providers, yet few studies have compared simulation to other teaching modalities. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction between two methods of teaching the principles of mechanical ventilation to advanced practice nursing (APN) students: high-fidelity patient simulation (including face-to-face instruction) versus an online, narrated PowerPoint presentation. Twenty APN students were randomized to either the simulation or online teaching method in this pre/posttest study. Measures included a 12-item knowledge questionnaire and a 5-item satisfaction survey. Both groups had significant improvement in knowledge scores from pretest to posttest, but knowledge scores were not significantly different at posttest between groups. Student satisfaction with their learning method was significantly higher in the simulation group. Students choosing to participate in the alternative teaching method after study completion preferred the simulation to the online method.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Mechanical ventilation nursing education for nursing students has been primarily relying on methods such as lectures or high-fidelity simulation (HFS) [7].”
From Development and effects of a chatbot education program for self-directed learning in nursing students (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
An evaluation of advanced simulation in nursing: A mixed-method study
Chiang, V. C. L., & Chan, S. S. C. (2014) · Collegian · doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2013.05.003 · Cited by 28
Han, J.-W., Park, J., & Lee, H. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07316-2 · Cited by 41
“Mechanical ventilation nursing education for nursing students has been primarily relying on methods such as lectures or high-fidelity simulation (HFS) [7].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Corbridge, S. J., Robinson, F. P., Tiffen, J., & Corbridge, T. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2010-04-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- Article12-Article12
- ISSN
- 1548-923X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2079206271
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 3.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
- Keywords
- mechanical ventilation, patient simulation, high-fidelity simulation, online learning, PowerPoint presentations, nurse practitioner education, advanced practice nursing, knowledge acquisition, student satisfaction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Education, Nursing, Graduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Respiration, Artificial, Students, Nursing, Program Evaluation, Nursing Education Research, Internet
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
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.