| Title |
Feedback for simulation-based procedural skills training: a meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-013-9462-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rose Hatala, David A. Cook, Benjamin Zendejas, Stanley J. Hamstra, Ryan Brydges |
| Abstract |
Although feedback has been identified as a key instructional feature in simulation based medical education (SBME), we remain uncertain as to the magnitude of its effectiveness and the mechanisms by which it may be effective. We employed a meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis to examine the effectiveness of feedback for SBME procedural skills training and to examine how it works in this context. Our results demonstrate that feedback is moderately effective during procedural skills training in SBME, with a pooled effect size favoring feedback for skill outcomes of 0.74 (95 % CI 0.38-1.09; p < .001). Terminal feedback appears more effective than concurrent feedback for novice learners' skill retention. Multiple sources of feedback, including instructor feedback, lead to short-term performance gains although data on long-term effects is lacking. The mechanism by which feedback may be operating is consistent with the guidance hypothesis, with more research needed to examine other mechanisms such as cognitive load theory and social development theory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Brazil | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 306 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 10% |
| Other | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 87 | 28% |
| Unknown | 65 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 33 | 11% |
| Psychology | 27 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 5% |
| Engineering | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 11% |
| Unknown | 84 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2019.
All research outputs
#5,695,769
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#276
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,657
of 195,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.