High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students.
Education
Medical
Overconfidence
Simulation
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Jan 2019
21 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
22
10
2018
accepted:
09
01
2019
entrez:
23
1
2019
pubmed:
23
1
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Simulation has become integral to the training of both undergraduate medical students and medical professionals. Due to the increasing degree of realism and range of features, the latest mannequins are referred to as high-fidelity simulators. Whether increased realism leads to a general improvement in trainees' outcomes is currently controversial and there are few data on the effects of these simulators on participants' personal confidence and self-assessment. One-hundred-and-thirty-five fourth-year medical students were randomly allocated to participate in either a high- or a low-fidelity simulated Advanced Life Support training session. Theoretical knowledge and self-assessment pre- and post-tests were completed. Students' performance in simulated scenarios was recorded and rated by experts. Participants in both groups showed a significant improvement in theoretical knowledge in the post-test as compared to the pre-test, without significant intergroup differences. Performance, as assessed by video analysis, was comparable between groups, but, unexpectedly, the low-fidelity group had significantly better results in several sub-items. Irrespective of the findings, participants of the high-fidelity group considered themselves to be advantaged, solely based on their group allocation, compared with those in the low-fidelity group, at both pre- and post-self-assessments. Self-rated confidence regarding their individual performance was also significantly overrated. The use of high-fidelity simulation led to equal or even worse performance and growth in knowledge as compared to low-fidelity simulation, while also inducing undesirable effects such as overconfidence. Hence, in this study, it was not beneficial compared to low-fidelity, but rather proved to be an adverse learning tool.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Simulation has become integral to the training of both undergraduate medical students and medical professionals. Due to the increasing degree of realism and range of features, the latest mannequins are referred to as high-fidelity simulators. Whether increased realism leads to a general improvement in trainees' outcomes is currently controversial and there are few data on the effects of these simulators on participants' personal confidence and self-assessment.
METHODS
METHODS
One-hundred-and-thirty-five fourth-year medical students were randomly allocated to participate in either a high- or a low-fidelity simulated Advanced Life Support training session. Theoretical knowledge and self-assessment pre- and post-tests were completed. Students' performance in simulated scenarios was recorded and rated by experts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Participants in both groups showed a significant improvement in theoretical knowledge in the post-test as compared to the pre-test, without significant intergroup differences. Performance, as assessed by video analysis, was comparable between groups, but, unexpectedly, the low-fidelity group had significantly better results in several sub-items. Irrespective of the findings, participants of the high-fidelity group considered themselves to be advantaged, solely based on their group allocation, compared with those in the low-fidelity group, at both pre- and post-self-assessments. Self-rated confidence regarding their individual performance was also significantly overrated.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The use of high-fidelity simulation led to equal or even worse performance and growth in knowledge as compared to low-fidelity simulation, while also inducing undesirable effects such as overconfidence. Hence, in this study, it was not beneficial compared to low-fidelity, but rather proved to be an adverse learning tool.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30665397
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1464-7
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1464-7
pmc: PMC6341720
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
29Références
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34
pubmed: 10626367
Acad Med. 2001 Oct;76(10 Suppl):S87-9
pubmed: 11597883
J Urol. 2002 Mar;167(3):1243-7
pubmed: 11832706
Med Educ. 2004 Jan;38(1):32-8
pubmed: 14962024
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9(3):211-24
pubmed: 15316272
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Oct;13 Suppl 1:i11-8
pubmed: 15465949
Med Educ. 2006 Mar;40(3):254-62
pubmed: 16483328
Emerg Med J. 2006 Jul;23(7):509-11
pubmed: 16794089
JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1094-102
pubmed: 16954489
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 May;14(2):159-71
pubmed: 18214702
Med Teach. 2007 Oct;29(8):e243-50
pubmed: 18236268
Am J Med. 2008 May;121(5 Suppl):S2-23
pubmed: 18440350
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Jul;56(7):1328-32
pubmed: 18482292
J Nurs Educ. 2008 Sep;47(9):403-8
pubmed: 18792707
Crit Care Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):2697-701
pubmed: 19885989
Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):806-12
pubmed: 20520031
BMC Med Educ. 2010 Jun 24;10:50
pubmed: 20576125
Med Teach. 2010;32(7):558-61
pubmed: 20653377
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Jul;84(1):3-9
pubmed: 20708898
Simul Healthc. 2010 Dec;5(6):320-4
pubmed: 21330816
Scott Med J. 2011 May;56(2):104-9
pubmed: 21670138
J Perinatol. 2012 Apr;32(4):287-92
pubmed: 22031045
J Med Invest. 2012;59(1-2):28-35
pubmed: 22449990
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Sep;91(9):1015-28
pubmed: 22693954
Acad Med. 2012 Oct;87(10):1316-22
pubmed: 22914515
Med Educ. 2012 Nov;46(11):1022-3
pubmed: 23078677
Semin Perinatol. 2013 Jun;37(3):179-88
pubmed: 23721775
Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7
pubmed: 2400509
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015 Mar;20(1):205-18
pubmed: 24916954
Hosp Pract (1995). 2014 Oct;42(4):135-41
pubmed: 25502137
Med Educ. 2015 Mar;49(3):276-85
pubmed: 25693987
Resuscitation. 2015 Aug;93:142-9
pubmed: 25888241
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Jan;36:37-43
pubmed: 26282193
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Nov 03;8:636
pubmed: 26526494
Simul Healthc. 2015 Dec;10(6):360-367
pubmed: 26536341
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Nov;46:99-108
pubmed: 27621199
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):138
pubmed: 27809908