Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Counts, frequencies, and mean (IQR) for ratings of the benefits of simulation-based learning and comparison of post-module 1 and post-module 2 (Wilcoxon signed-ranks, n = 14)

From: Simulated patient contributions to enhancing exercise physiology student clinical assessment skills

ItemPost-module 1Post-module 2Comparison
% disagree (n)% unsure (n)% agree (n)% strongly agree (n)Median (IQR)% disagree (n)% unsure (n)% agree (n)% strongly AgreeMedian (IQR)ZP
I found that working with peers on the same SP helped my learning0.0% (0)7.1% (1)21.4% (3)71.4% (10)5.00 (4.00–5.00)0.0% (0)7.1% (1)42.9% (6)50.0% (7)4.50 (4.00–5.00)− 1.1340.257
I was less concerned about making a mistake with SPs than with a real patient21.4% (3)7.1% (1)21.4% (3)50.0% (7)4.50 (2.75–5.00)7.1% (1)0.0% (0)50.0% (7)42.9% (6)4.00 (4.00–5.00)− 1.0430.297
Feedback from a “patient perspective” from role play actors helped my learning0.0% (0)21.4% (3)21.4% (3)57.1% (8)5.00 (3.75–5.00)0.0% (0)7.1% (1)21.4% (3)71.4% (10)5.00 (4.00–5.00)− 0.8930.372
The clinical facilitator was able to give more “frank and honest” feedback in the presence of a SP, compared with a real patient0.0% (0)0.0% (0)42.9% (6)57.1% (8)5.00 (4.00–5.00)7.1% (1)0.0% (0)21.4% (3)71.4% (10)5.00 (4.00–5.00)0.0001.000
This model of education met my learning style0.0% (0)7.1% (1)28.6% (4)64.3% (9)5.00 (4.00–5.00)0.0% (0)7.1% (1)28.6% (4)64.3% (9)5.00 (4.00–5.00)0.0001.000
Simulated learning provides a link between theoretical and practical training0.0% (0)0.0% (0)7.1% (1)92.9% (13)5.00 (5.00–5.00)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)28.6% (4)71.4% (10)5.00 (4.00–5.00)− 1.3420.180
  1. Strongly disagree” omitted as there were no ratings at both time points
  2. IQR indicates interquartile range (quartile 1–quartile 3)
  3. SP simulated patient