返回澳門理工大學

概況

2020/2021

Development of student simulated patient training and evaluation indicators in a high-fidelity nursing simulation: A Delphi consensus study

Frontiers of Nursing, 2021, 8(1): 23-31

作者	Hao-Bin Yuan
摘要	Objective: This study is aimed to develop student simulated patient (SSP) training content and evaluation indicators, and further explores their validity and reliabilities. Methods: Delphi consultations with 20 nursing experts were conducted. The weights of indicators were calculated through the analytic hierarchy process. SSP training was conducted with a high-fidelity nursing simulation. Results: The expert positive coefficients were 0.952 in the first round consultation and 1.00 in the second round consultation. The expert authority coefficient was reported as 0.87. The training included role and responsibility of simulated patient (SP), script interpretation, plot performance, and training for a rater, with a total of 17 indicators. SSP evaluation consisted of disease knowledge, role portrayal, and performance fidelity and since being a rater, it consists of 20 indicators in total. The coordination coefficients of two rounds of consultation ranged from 0.530 to 0.918. The content validity of SSP evaluation indicators was 0.95. The inter-rater reliability was reported as 0.866, and the internal consistency established using Cronbach’s α was 0.727. Conclusions: Students as SPs should have first-hand knowledge and experience within the simulated scenarios. SSP training content and evaluation indicators were determined through the Delphi consensus combined with analytic hierarchy process. The evaluation indicators were valid and reliable, and provided the objective and quantifiable measurements for SSP training in nursing.

作者

Hao-Bin Yuan

摘要

Objective: This study is aimed to develop student simulated patient (SSP) training content and evaluation indicators, and further explores their validity and reliabilities.

Methods: Delphi consultations with 20 nursing experts were conducted. The weights of indicators were calculated through the analytic hierarchy process. SSP training was conducted with a high-fidelity nursing simulation.

Results: The expert positive coefficients were 0.952 in the first round consultation and 1.00 in the second round consultation. The expert authority coefficient was reported as 0.87. The training included role and responsibility of simulated patient (SP), script interpretation, plot performance, and training for a rater, with a total of 17 indicators. SSP evaluation consisted of disease knowledge, role portrayal, and performance fidelity and since being a rater, it consists of 20 indicators in total. The coordination coefficients of two rounds of consultation ranged from 0.530 to 0.918. The content validity of SSP evaluation indicators was 0.95. The inter-rater reliability was reported as 0.866, and the internal consistency established using Cronbach’s α was 0.727.

Conclusions: Students as SPs should have first-hand knowledge and experience within the simulated scenarios. SSP training content and evaluation indicators were determined through the Delphi consensus combined with analytic hierarchy process. The evaluation indicators were valid and reliable, and provided the objective and quantifiable measurements for SSP training in nursing.

Top Top