Assessing validity evidence for a serious game dedicated to patient clinical deterioration and communication

Blanié, Antonia; Amorim, Michel-Ange; Meffert, Arnaud; Perrot, Corinne; Dondelli, Lydie; Benhamou, Dan

doi:10.1186/s41077-020-00123-3

Advances in Simulation

Table 2 Results of the self-questionnaire assessing response process validity evidence in the three groups

From: Assessing validity evidence for a serious game dedicated to patient clinical deterioration and communication

	Group S n = 25	Group R n = 25	Group E n = 21	p
Q1. Do you think that this serious game provided a complete and good nursing care experience with respect to the medical content and educational objectives? 1 (No, not at all) to 10 (completely correct and good)
Post-operative haemorrhage scenario	7.8 ± 1.2	8.0 ± 1.3	7.8 ± 1.3	0.83
Brain trauma scenario	7.8 ± 1.3	7.0 ± 1.3	8.2 ± 1.0	0.48
Obstructed intestinal tract scenario	7.5 ± 1.4	7.7 ± 1.5	7.5 ± 1.4	0.86
Q2. Do you think that this serious game was realistic? 1 (not realistic) to 10 (very realistic)	7.7 ± 1.4	7.0 ± 1.6	7.5 ± 1.4	0.25
Q3. Do you think that the clinical scenario was realistic? 1 (not realistic) to 10 (very realistic)
Post-operative haemorrhage scenario	8.0 ± 2.0	7.7 ± 1.6	8.2 ± 1.1	0.50
Brain trauma scenario	8.1 ± 1.4	7.8 ± 1.3	8.6 ± 0.7	0.07
Obstructed intestinal tract scenario	7.4 ± 2.0	7.6 ± 1.4	8.0 ± 1.1	0.39
Q4. Do you think that the history-taking was realistic? 1 (not realistic) to 10 (very realistic)	7.9 ± 1.3	7.4 ± 1.4	7.5 ± 1.2	0.41
Q5. Do you think that the clinical exam was realistic? 1 (not realistic) to 10 (very realistic)
Post-operative haemorrhage scenario	7.8 ± 1.2	7.7 ± 1.4	8.1 ± 1.0	0.53
Brain trauma scenario	8.0 ± 1.0	7.8 ± 1.3	8.1 ± 1	0.58 0.76
Obstructed intestinal tract scenario	7.5 ± 1.5	7.8 ± 1.3	7.8 ± 1.1
Q6. Do you think that the care report was realistic? 1 (not realistic) to 10 (very realistic)	8.5 ± 1.0^,**	7.5 ± 1.6	7.4 ± 1.9	0.02*
Q7. Do you think that the graphics and animations were realistic? 1 (not realistic) to 10 (very realistic)	8.4 ± 0.9	7.6 ± 1.3	7.8 ± 1.7	0.06
Q8. Overall, are you satisfied with this serious game as an educational tool? 1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied)	7.0 ± 1.5	7.0 ± 1.7	7.0 ± 1.5	0.98
Q9. Do you think that incorporating the serious game concept improves your training? 1 (No, not at all) to 10 (Yes, very much)	8.4 ± 1.2	7.7 ± 2	6.9 ± 2.9	0.05
Q10. Do you think that this tool increases your skills? 1 (No, not at all) to 10 (Yes, very much)	8.4 ± 1.5	7.7 ± 1.8	5.5 ± 2.1^,*	< .0001*
Q11. Do you think that this training will have an impact on your professional work? 1 (No, not at all) to 10 (Yes, very much)	7.3 ± 1.3	6.8 ± 1.8	4.4 ± 1.9^,*	< .0001*
Q12. Would you recommend this training to other students or colleagues? 1 (No, not at all) to 10 (Yes, very much)	8.8 ± 1.2	8.2 ± 1.5	8.1 ± 1.8	0.17

Results are described as means ± SD and compared using ANOVA (followed by post hoc comparison when significant)
^**Group E ≠ S with p < 0.05
^***Group E ≠ group R with p < 0.05
^****Group S ≠ group R with p < 0.05

Back to article page

ISSN: 2059-0628

Contact us

General enquiries: Journalsubmissions@springernature.com