Reliability and validity study of the Spanish adaptation of the “Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale” (SCLS)

The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) recommends the use of new educational methodologies and the evaluation of student satisfaction. Different instruments have been developed in Spain to evaluate different aspects such as clinical decisions and teamwork, however no instruments have been found that specifically evaluate student self-confidence and satisfaction during clinical simulation. The aim was to translate the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLS) questionnaire into Spanish and analyse its reliability and validity and understand the level of satisfaction and self-confidence of nursing students with respect to learning in clinical simulations. The study was carried out in two phases: (1) adaptation of the questionnaire into Spanish. (2) Cross-sectional study in a sample of 489 nursing students. The reliability and exploratory and confirmatory factorial analyses were performed. To analyse the relationship of the scale scores with the socio-demographic variables, the Fisher Student T-test or the ANOVA was used. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability for the total scale and each of its dimensions. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 (0.83 to 0.81) for each of the dimensions. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis showed that both the one-dimensional and two-dimensional models were acceptable. The results showed average scores above 4 for both dimensions. The SCLS-Spanish translation demonstrated evidence of its validity and reliability for use to understand the level of satisfaction and self-confidence of nursing students in clinical simulation. Clinical simulations help students to increase their levels of confidence and satisfaction, enabling them to face real scenarios in clinical practice.

Simulation in physiotherapy students for clinical decisions during interaction with people with low back pain: randomised controlled trial

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a condition with a high global prevalence, which is getting health professionals’ attention, including physiotherapists as they must have the skills to provide treatment that increases the patient’s quality of life. Clinical simulations could be a pedagogic strategy that facilitates adequate training for students to acquire skills to improve their professional reasoning in this clinical situation. Objective This study sought to determine the effects of clinical simulations with simulated patients (SP) on the physiotherapy students’ clinical decision-making within a role-playing (RP) scenario while caring of LBP patients. Methods This experimental study included 42 participants from two Colombian universities, randomized into two groups (SP, n = 21; RP, n = 21). The clinical skill of performing the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE-LBP) was evaluated while students cared for patients with LBP; after that, a pedagogical method was conducted that included clinical simulation and, finally, the OSCE-LBP was applied again to compare both groups. Results Changes occurred in the OSCE-LBP among both groups of students: the scores increased (0.66 and 0.59 in RP and SP, respectively), and neither of the two was superior (p value 0.01; 95%CI − 0.21 to 0.23). Conclusion Both types of simulation favor decision-making in professional reasoning in physiotherapy students during interactions with individuals with LBP. Trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04428892 Identifying number: NCT04428892. It was retrospectively registered.

Paramedic students’ confidence and satisfaction with clinical simulations of an emergency medical care programme in South Africa: A cross-sectional study

Background: There has been an increase in the use of clinical simulations as instructional tools in healthcare education. This is because of their role in ensuring patients’ safety and quality-care provision.Aim: This study investigated the paramedic students’ satisfaction and self-confidence in the clinical simulation of an emergency medical care programme.Setting: The study was conducted at the Durban University of Technology in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa. The paramedic students’ satisfaction and self-confidence in the clinical simulation of an emergency medical care programme were the focus of the study.Methods: The study used a cross-sectional research design. A convenience sampling method was used to select the 83-paramedic students who participated in the study. Data were collected between July and September 2017 using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages and Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient) and an inferential test, ordinal logistic regression analysis, were used for data analysis.Results: High levels of paramedic students’ satisfaction and self-confidence in simulation activities were reported. Generally, the paramedic students’ demographics were associated with the satisfaction and self-confidence variables with p-values ≤ 0.04. Emergency medical care training undertaken by the paramedic students was significantly associated with self-confidence (p = 0.00).Conclusion: Clinical simulation can bridge the theory-practice gap for paramedic students. It is a hands-on approach that promotes students learning of clinical skills through reflection.

A Pilot Study Investigating the Effect of the Supervision-Questioning-Feedback Model of Supervision on Stimulating Critical Thinking in Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Students

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the supervision-questioning-feedback (SQF) model of supervision on critical thinking in graduate students studying speech-language pathology. The researchers hypothesized that students who were provided with the SQF model of supervision would score higher than students who received the non-SQF (NSQF) style of supervision on the selected critical thinking measures. Method Seventeen out of 24 first semester graduate students in speech-language pathology completing their on-site university-based clinical practicum experience consented to participate in the study. Of the 17 participating first semester students, 9 were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 SQF trained supervisors, and the other 8 were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 NSQF trained supervisors for the duration of 1 semester. Additionally, 3 out of 24 fourth semester graduate students completing their off-site externship experience and their supervisors consented to participate in the study. Four additional study participants served as independent SQF-trained raters charged with the task of analyzing video recorded student-supervisor conferences to determine whether the SQF model of supervision was being implemented. Prior to and at the conclusion of the clinical experience, all participating students completed two measures of critical thinking: (1) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and (2) two Simucase® clinical simulations. At the conclusion of the clinical experience, seventeen out of 20 participating students (11/12 SQF students and 6/8 NSQF students) completed a post-survey rating their supervisory experience . Results For participating first semester students, there were no overall statistically significant differences between SQF and NSQF groups as measured by pre to post completion of (1) CCTST (p=.544) and (2) two Simucase® clinical simulations (p=.781). The 3 participating fourth semester students who received the SQF model of supervision also showed no statistically significant differences on pre to post completion of the (1) CCTST (p=.827) and (2) two Simucase® virtual cases (p=.879). Results from SQF ratings revealed variability in the implementation of the SQF model across supervisors with a moderate level of inter-rater agreement. Results from post surveys completed by students showed that students preferred the SQF model of supervision over the NSQF model (p=.044). Conclusion Results from this preliminary study indicated that the SQF model did not influence the overall outcomes on the selected critical thinking measures. Student preference for the SQF model may support existing evidence that learning clinicians want to be actively engaged in the supervisory process. There were several limitations to this study including the small sample size, variability in the implementation of the SQF model across supervisors, sensitivity of the selected critical thinking measures, and timing of post-intervention procedures. Further investigation of the effects of SQF on students’ critical thinking is warranted.