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 SMN, 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-Zapata A. Educación basada en simulación, una metodología activa de aprendizaje a través de experiencia y reflexión. 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 simulation in 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 the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. 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 physical examination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2013; 120 (10): 1171-1182. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12289.

  5. Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge; 2009.

  6. Zhou XL, Wang J, Jin XQ, Zhao Y, Liu RL, Jiang C. Quality retention of chest compression after repetitive practices with or without feedback devices: a randomized 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-Aramburu EP, Pérez-Villalobos C, Bastías-Vega N. Aportes de la simulación al desarrollo del razonamiento clínico en estudiantes de pregrado de medicina. Simulación Clínica. 2020; 2 (1): 19-25. doi: 10.35366/92935.

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

  9. Lee SG, Shin YH. Effects of self-directed feedback practice using smartphone videos on basic nursing skills, confidence in performance and learning satisfaction. 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. The impact of feedback during formative testing on study behaviour 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 ceiling in the testing instrument influences value-added estimation. Educ Finance Policy. 2010; 5 (1): 54-81. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1261014.

  12. Hatala R, Cook DA, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R. Feedback for simulation-based procedural skills training: 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, Appel J, Roussel D, et al. Diagnosing and remediating clinical reasoning 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, Audétat MC. Exploring a new simulation approach to improve 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 after summative assessment: how do students engage? Med Educ. 2013; 47 (7): 734-744. doi: 10.1111/medu.12209.

  16. Harrison CJ, Konings KD, Schuwirth L, Wass V, van der Vleuten C. Barriers to the uptake and use of feedback in the context of summative assessment. Adv Health Sci 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 phenomenological exploration of the feedback experience of medical students 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 student performance. 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 effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2013; 35 (1): e867-e898. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.714886.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com