Skip to main content

Table 2 Analysis summary on stress and performance variables comparing ‘hot-seat’ (n = 18) and ‘observer’ (n = 19) study groups

From: The effects of active (hot-seat) versus observer roles during simulation-based training on stress levels and non-technical performance: a randomized trial

Stress variable

Role

Session

ANOVA

p valuesa

1

2

3

LS mean change from baseline, (95% CI), median

 Salivary cortisol (μg/dL)

Hot-seat

0.12*b

(0.05, 0.19)

0.05

0.07*

(0.001, 0.15)

0.03

0.09*

(0.01, 0.16)

0.05

0.608

0.311e

Observers

−0.06

(−0.13, 0.01)

−0.02

0.01

(−0.06, 0.08)

−0.01

0.14**

(0.07, 0.22)

0.15

<0.001**d

0.008**e

Difference

0.18**c

(0.08, 0.29)

0.06

(−0.04, 0.16)

−0.06

(−0.16, 0.04)

 

H-L location shift (95% CI)

0.09**

(0.02, 0.26)

0.04

(−0.01, 0.11)

−0.06

(−0.16, 0.04)

 

LS mean change from baseline, (95% CI)

 Heart rate (beats/min)

Hot-seat

6.4*

(1.2, 12)

5.4*

(0.2, 10.7)

4.7

(−0.5, 9.9)

0.902

Observers

−0.4

(−4.7, 3.8)

−0.4

(−4.7, 3.8)

5.7*

(1.4, 9.9)

0.071

 

Difference

6.8*

(0.2, 13.5)

5.9

(−0.8, 12.5)

−1.0

(−7.6, 5.7)

 

LS mean, (95% CI), median

 mDASS

Hot-seat

17.6

(12.4, 22.7)

16

15.4

(10.2, 20.5)

13

14.4

(9.2, 19.6)

14.5

0.676

0.666e

Observers

9.0

(4.9, 13.1)

6

5.9

(1.9, 10.0)

5

13.4

(9.3, 17.4)

11

0.042*f

0.001**e

Difference

8.6*

(2.0, 15.1)

9.4**

(2.9, 16.0)

1.0

(−5.5, 7.5)

 

H-L location shift (95% CI)

8.0*

(2, 15)

8.0**

(2, 15)

1.0

(−5, 9)

 

LS mean, (95% CI)

 ANTS

Hot-seat

36.7

(34.6, 38.9)

39.6

(37.5, 41.7)

40.0

(37.9, 42.1)

0.036*

Observers

  

39.4

(37.4, 41.5)

 
 

Difference

  

0.6

(−2.4, 3.5)

 
  1. LS least squares, H-L Hodges-Lehmann
  2. Statistically significant, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
  3. aH0: no difference among session means
  4. bH0: mean change from baseline = 0 (salivary cortisol and heart rate only)
  5. cH0: no difference between ‘hot-seat’ and ‘observer’ session means
  6. dPost hoc comparisons: session 1 versus 3, −0.20 (−0.31, −0.10); p = 0.0002; session 2 versus 3: −0.13 (−0.24, −0.03); p = 0.011
  7. eH0: no difference among session medians
  8. fPost hoc comparison: session 2 versus 3, −7.4 (−13.2, −1.7); p = 0.012