Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2018
Validity Evidence for a Serious Game to Assess Performance on Critical Pediatric Emergency Medicine Scenarios.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gerard James M, Scalzo Anthony J, Borgman Matthew A, Watson Christopher M, Byrnes Chelsie E, Chang Todd P, Auerbach Marc, Kessler David O, Feldman Brian L, Payne Brian S, Nibras Sohail, Chokshi Riti K, Lopreiato Joseph O
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We developed a first-person serious game, PediatricSim, to teach and assess performances on seven critical pediatric scenarios (anaphylaxis, bronchiolitis, diabetic ketoacidosis, respiratory failure, seizure, septic shock, and supraventricular tachycardia). In the game, players are placed in the role of a code leader and direct patient management by selecting from various assessment and treatment options. The objective of this study was to obtain supportive validity evidence for the PediatricSim game scores.
METHODS: Game content was developed by 11 subject matter experts and followed the American Heart Association's 2011 Pediatric Advanced Life Support Provider Manual and other authoritative references. Sixty subjects with three different levels of experience were enrolled to play the game. Before game play, subjects completed a 40-item written pretest of knowledge. Game scores were compared between subject groups using scoring rubrics developed for the scenarios. Validity evidence was established and interpreted according to Messick's framework.
RESULTS: Content validity was supported by a game development process that involved expert experience, focused literature review, and pilot testing. Subjects rated the game favorably for engagement, realism, and educational value. Interrater agreement on game scoring was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-0.9). Game scores were higher for attendings followed by residents then medical students (Pc < 0.01) with large effect sizes (1.6-4.4) for each comparison. There was a very strong, positive correlation between game and written test scores (r = 0.84, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute validity evidence for PediatricSim game scores to assess knowledge of pediatric emergency medicine resuscitation.
METHODS: Game content was developed by 11 subject matter experts and followed the American Heart Association's 2011 Pediatric Advanced Life Support Provider Manual and other authoritative references. Sixty subjects with three different levels of experience were enrolled to play the game. Before game play, subjects completed a 40-item written pretest of knowledge. Game scores were compared between subject groups using scoring rubrics developed for the scenarios. Validity evidence was established and interpreted according to Messick's framework.
RESULTS: Content validity was supported by a game development process that involved expert experience, focused literature review, and pilot testing. Subjects rated the game favorably for engagement, realism, and educational value. Interrater agreement on game scoring was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-0.9). Game scores were higher for attendings followed by residents then medical students (Pc < 0.01) with large effect sizes (1.6-4.4) for each comparison. There was a very strong, positive correlation between game and written test scores (r = 0.84, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute validity evidence for PediatricSim game scores to assess knowledge of pediatric emergency medicine resuscitation.