| Title |
An experimental study on the effects of a simulation game on students’ clinical cognitive skills and motivation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-015-9641-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary E. W. Dankbaar, Jelmer Alsma, Els E. H. Jansen, Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, Jan L. C. M. van Saase, Stephanie C. E. Schuit |
| Abstract |
Simulation games are becoming increasingly popular in education, but more insight in their critical design features is needed. This study investigated the effects of fidelity of open patient cases in adjunct to an instructional e-module on students' cognitive skills and motivation. We set up a three-group randomized post-test-only design: a control group working on an e-module; a cases group, combining the e-module with low-fidelity text-based patient cases, and a game group, combining the e-module with a high-fidelity simulation game with the same cases. Participants completed questionnaires on cognitive load and motivation. After a 4-week study period, blinded assessors rated students' cognitive emergency care skills in two mannequin-based scenarios. In total 61 students participated and were assessed; 16 control group students, 20 cases students and 25 game students. Learning time was 2 h longer for the cases and game groups than for the control group. Acquired cognitive skills did not differ between groups. The game group experienced higher intrinsic and germane cognitive load than the cases group (p = 0.03 and 0.01) and felt more engaged (p < 0.001). Students did not profit from working on open cases (in adjunct to an e-module), which nonetheless challenged them to study longer. The e-module appeared to be very effective, while the high-fidelity game, although engaging, probably distracted students and impeded learning. Medical educators designing motivating and effective skills training for novices should align case complexity and fidelity with students' proficiency level. The relation between case-fidelity, motivation and skills development is an important field for further study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 264 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 9% |
| Researcher | 20 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 56 | 21% |
| Unknown | 90 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 28 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 10% |
| Psychology | 17 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 14% |
| Unknown | 98 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,001,133
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#295
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,348
of 275,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd 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 64% 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 275,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.