medigraphic.com
ISSN 2683-2348 (Electronic)
Federación Latinoamericana de Simulación Clínica y Seguridad del Paciente

2026, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Simulación Clínica 2026; 8 (1)

Correlation between feedback and performance improvement in clinical simulation: an observational study

De los Santos-Rodríguez MN, Barboza-Soria SA, Sierra-Morales GP, Solís-Gutiérrez CF, Torres-Terán LF, Coronado-Álvarez AR

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 25-32
PDF size: 831.64 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: feedback is essential for simulation-based learning. Objective: to identify the correlation between attendance at a post-assessment feedback session and improvement in the second assessment. Material and methods: a total of 214 students were included. The total scores for each assessment were analyzed by attribute of clinical competence and the differences between the first and second assessments. Correlation tests and mean differences were used, in addition to descriptive statistics and effect sizes. Results: improvement was found from the first to the second assessment, analyzed using the Wilcoxon test (p ‹ 0.001, d = 0.64), and was reflected independently of attendance at the feedback session (attendance ‹ 0.001 vs non-attendance 0.024). The areas of “physical examination” (p = 0.032) and “procedure” (p = 0.001) had a low correlation, the rest of the areas of clinical competence, and in the general population, no statistically significant correlation was found. Conclusion: information was found that reinforces the use of feedback and simulation practice to improve student performance; however, a single session following an assessment primarily impacts procedural skills.


REFERENCES

  1. Díaz-Guio DA, Vasco M, Ferrero F, Ricardo-ZapataA. Educación basada en simulación, una metodologíaactiva de aprendizaje a través de experiencia yreflexión. Simulación Clínica. 2024; 6 (3): 119-126.doi: 10.35366/118838.

  2. Amit K, Naithani M, Basu S, Tyagi AK, Jat B,Vetrivel G et al. A short introduction to simulationin health education. Journal of Medical Evidence.2023; 4 (2): 151-156. https://doi.org/10.4103/jme.jme_45_23

  3. Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M. Deepening thetheoretical foundations of patient simulation as socialpractice. Simul Healthc. 2007; 2 (3): 183-193. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180f637f5.

  4. Dilaveri CA, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Cook DA.Simulation training for breast and pelvic physicalexamination: a systematic review and metaanalysis.BJOG. 2013; 120 (10): 1171-1182. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12289.

  5. Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 metaanalysesrelating to achievement. London: Routledge;2009.

  6. Zhou XL, Wang J, Jin XQ, Zhao Y, Liu RL, Jiang C.Quality retention of chest compression after repetitivepractices with or without feedback devices: arandomized manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38 (1): 73-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.04.025.

  7. Armijo-Rivera S, Behrens-Pérez C, Reyes-AramburuEP, Pérez-Villalobos C, Bastías-Vega N. Aportes de lasimulación al desarrollo del razonamiento clínico enestudiantes de pregrado de medicina. SimulaciónClínica. 2020; 2 (1): 19-25. doi: 10.35366/92935.

  8. Jabaay MJ, Marotta DA, Aita SL, Walker DB, GrcevichLO, Camba V, et al. Medical Simulation-Based LearningOutcomes in Pre-Clinical Medical Education. Cureus.2020; 12 (12): e11875. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11875.

  9. Lee SG, Shin YH. Effects of self-directed feedbackpractice using smartphone videos on basic nursingskills, confidence in performance and learningsatisfaction. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2016; 46 (2): 283-292. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2016.46.2.283.

  10. Thijssen DHJ, Hopman MTE, van Wijngaarden MT,Hoenderop JGJ, Bindels RJM, Eijsvogels TMH. Theimpact of feedback during formative testing on studybehaviour and performance of (bio)medical students:a randomised controlled study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19 (1): 97. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1534-x.

  11. Koedel C, Betts J. Value added to what? How a ceilingin the testing instrument influences value-addedestimation. Educ Finance Policy. 2010; 5 (1): 54-81.doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1261014.

  12. Hatala R, Cook DA, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, BrydgesR. Feedback for simulation-based procedural skillstraining: a meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis.Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014; 19 (2): 251-272. doi: 10.1007/s10459-013-9462-8.

  13. Weinstein A, Gupta S, Pinto-Powell R, Jackson J, AppelJ, Roussel D, et al. Diagnosing and remediating clinicalreasoning difficulties: a faculty development workshop.MedEdPORTAL. 2017; 13: 10650. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10650.

  14. Pennaforte T, Moussa A, Loye N, Charlin B, AudétatMC. Exploring a new simulation approach toimprove clinical reasoning teaching and assessment:randomized trial protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016; 5(1): e26. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4938.

  15. Harrison CJ, Konings KD, Molyneux A, Schuwirth LW,Wass V, van der Vleuten CP. Web-based feedback aftersummative assessment: how do students engage? MedEduc. 2013; 47 (7): 734-744. doi: 10.1111/medu.12209.

  16. Harrison CJ, Konings KD, Schuwirth L, Wass V, van derVleuten C. Barriers to the uptake and use of feedbackin the context of summative assessment. Adv HealthSci Educ Theory Pract. 2015; 20 (1): 229-425. doi:10.1007/s10459-014-9524-6.

  17. Jay R, Hagan P, Madan C, Patel R. A phenomenologicalexploration of the feedback experience of medicalstudents after summative exam failure. BMC Med Educ.2023; 23 (1): 930. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04892-z.

  18. Aucejo EM, Wong K. The effect of feedback on studentperformance. J Public Econ. 2025; 241: 105274. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2024.105274.

  19. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B,Szostek JH, Wang AT et al. Comparative effectivenessof instructional design features in simulationbasededucation: systematic review and metaanalysis.Med Teach. 2013; 35 (1): e867-e898. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.714886.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com