Effectiveness of integrated simulation and clinical experiences compared to traditional clinical experiences for nursing students.
Curl, E. D., Smith, S., Chisholm, L. A., McGee, L. A., & Das, K. (2016). Nursing education perspectives, 37(2), 72-77.
-
examining97Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Southeast Texas Regional Innovation Project on Effective Simulations (Nursing STRIPES))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Health Education Systems Inc. (HESI) Medical-Surgical Specialty Exam |
Southeast Texas Regional Innovation Project on Effective Simulations (Nursing STRIPES) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
931.04 |
883.98 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 57% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Black 26% White 61%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three associate-level nursing programs in Southeast Texas.
Study sample
Of the 124 study participants, 84.7 percent of students held a prior credential, and 71.8 percent had a vocational/technical certificate. A majority of students reported working in health care (78.2 percent), with most working 21 to 40 hours per week. The sample include 60.5 percent White students and 25.8% African-American students; 41 percent of the STRIPES group was female and 45 percent of the comparison group was female.
Intervention Group
Each STRIPES student participated in 20 simulation modules, 5 for each clinical specialty area. Each HFS module was four hours in length; simulations were usually conducted during afternoon or evening sessions in a central HFS laboratory at the university. Each simulation lasted 30 to 45 minutes followed by a 45- to 90-minute debriefing period. After each group completed the assigned activity (self-paced or HFS), the groups rotated. A wrap-up group discussion session for STRIPES students from one program at the end of the lab allowed all students and faculty to add final comments, further clarify issues brought out in the HFS, and participate in written evaluations.For the purpose of this study, student learning during four hours of HFS was considered equivalent to or better than eight hours of traditional clinical experiences when three criteria were met: a) prelab, to prepare students with the knowledge needed to be successful in the HFS, b) active participation in HFS, with each student having an active role, and c) debriefing (lasting as long as the HFS or up to twice as long as the HFS), focused on clinical reasoning with reflection on decision-making. When these three criteria were met, one hour of HFS replaced two hours of traditional clinical hours.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group were nursing students pursuing an Associate's degree that participated in traditional clinical (nursing) learning experiences.
Support for implementation
No additional details provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).