medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-2902 (Electronic)

2021, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Educación Médica Superior 2021; 35 (2)

Factorial structure and reliability of the debriefing evaluation scale for health simulation

Morales-Caro A, Bastías-Vega N, Pérez-Villalobos C

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 1-16
PDF size: 508.71 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Professors’ pedagogical practices in debriefing are important to ensure better learning outcomes in clinical simulation-based education.
Objective: To assess the factorial structure of an adapted version of the Debriefing Evaluation Scale for health simulation in Nursing students.
Methods: A methodological quantitative study was carried out with 159 Nursing students from a private university in Concepción, Chile, chosen through nonprobabilistic sampling for accessibility. They answered the adapted version of the Debriefing Evaluation Scale for health simulation and a sociodemographic questionnaire, with prior informed consent. An exploratory factor analysis of this adapted version was carried out, the reliability of the factor found was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and then a descriptive analysis of these elements was carried out.
Results: Only one factor was identified, which allows assessing the quality of debriefing in clinical simulation. The analysis of the reliability of the identified factor showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.97, a reason why it was classified as excellent, according to the ranges suggested by George and Mallery.
Conclusions: The results present psychometric evidence that supports the validity and reliability of the adapted version of the Debriefing Evaluation Scale for health simulation, to be used for assessing the quality of debriefing in clinical simulation in the Nursing major. However, it is assumed that its use must be complementary and not exclusive, with a qualitative approach to this phenomenon.


REFERENCES

  1. Opazo ME, Rojo E, Maestre JM. Modalidades de formación de instructores en simulación clínica: el papel de una estancia o pasantía. Educación Médica. 2017;18(1):22-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2016.07.008

  2. Lestander Ö, Lehto N, Engström Å. Nursing students' perceptions of learning after high fidelity simulation: Effects of a Three-step Post-simulation Reflection Model. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;40:219-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.03.011

  3. Urra E, Sandoval S, Irribarren F. El desafío y futuro de la simulación como estrategia de enseñanza en enfermería. Inv Ed Med. 2017;6(22):119-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2017.01.147.

  4. Sawyer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief: A critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(3):209-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000148

  5. Simon R, Raemer D, Rudolph J. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)-Student Version, Long Form. Boston, Massachusetts: Center for Medical Simulation; 2010 [acceso 30/06/2019]. Disponible en: https://harvardmedsim.org/debriefing-assessment-for-simulation-in-healthcare-dash/.

  6. INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of Best Practice: Simulation Debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016;12:21-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.008

  7. Cheng A, Morse KJ, Rudolph J, Arab AA, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development. Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):32-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000136

  8. Mikang K, Sunghee K. Debriefing Practices in Simulation-Based Nursing Education in South Korea. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2017;13(5):201-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2017.01.008

  9. Alhaj Ali A, Musalllam E. Debriefing Quality Evaluation in Nursing Simulation-Based Education: An Integrative Review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2018 March; 16:15-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2017.09.009

  10. Cheng A, Grant V, Dieckmann P, Arora S, Robinson T, Eppich W. Faculty Development for Simulation Programs: Five Issues for the Future of Debriefing Training. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(4):217-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000090

  11. Fey M, Jenkins L. Debriefing Practices in Nursing Education Programs: Results from a National Study. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(6):361-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5480/14-1520

  12. Lee J, Lee H, Kim S, Choi M, Sun Ko I, Bae J, et al. Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today. 2020 January;87(104345). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104345

  13. Saylor JL, Flannery S, Herge EA, Pohlig RT. Development of an Instrument to Assess the Clinical Effectiveness of the Debriefer in Simulation Education. J Allied Health. 2016 [acceso 07/12/2019];45(3):191-8. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5628394/

  14. Cheng A, Grant V, Huffman J, Burgess G, Szyld D, Robinson T, et al. Coaching the Debriefer: Peer Coaching to Improve Debriefing Quality in Simulation Programs. Simul Healthc. 2017 Oct;12(5):319-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000232

  15. Adams T, Newton C, Patel H, Sulistio M, Tomlinson A, Lee W. Resident versus faculty member simulation debriefing. Clin Teach. 2018 Dec; 15(6):462-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12735

  16. Kang K, Yu M. Comparison of student self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing in nursing simulation: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;65:67-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.030

  17. Rudolph JW, Palaganas J, Fey MK, Onello R, Thomas Dreifuerst K, Simon R. A DASH to the Top: Educator Debriefing Standards as a Path to Practice Readiness for Nursing Students. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016;12(9):412-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.05.003

  18. Tanoubi I, Labben I, Guédira S, Drolet P, Perron R, Robitaille A, et al. The impact of a high fidelity simulation-based debriefing course on the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)(c) score of novice instructors. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2019 Oct;7(4):159-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30476/jamp.2019.74583.0

  19. Brown DK, Wong AH, Ahmed RA. Evaluation of simulation debriefing methods with interprofessional learning. J Interprof Care. 2018 Jul;19:1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2018.1500451

  20. Durand C, Secheresse T, Leconte M. [The use of the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) in a simulation-based team learning program for newborn resuscitation in the delivery room]. Arch Pediatr. 2017;24(12):1197-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcped.2017.09.017

  21. Poland S, Frey JA, Khobrani A, Ondrejka JE, Ruhlin MU, George RL, et al. Telepresent Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma Examination Training Versus Traditional Training for Medical Students: A Simulation-Based Pilot Study. J Ultrasound Med. 2018 Aug;37(8):1985-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14551

  22. Leal C, Juguera L, Pardo M, Martín M, Díaz J. Evaluación del curso de instructores en simulación clínica de la Universidad Católica de Murcia (UCAM). Enfermería Docente. 2015 [acceso 10/04/2019];1(103):8-14. Disponible en: https://www.huvv.es/sites/default/files/revistas/ED-103-04.pdf

  23. Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux M, Fleegler E, Cheng A, et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc. 2012;7(5):288-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0b013e3182620228

  24. Maestre J, Muller-Botti S, del Moral I, Fey M, et al. Center For Medical Simulation; 2021 [acceso 05/02/2021]. Disponible en: https://harvardmedsim.org/debriefing-assessment-for-simulation-in-healthcare-dash/.

  25. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, Tatham R. Análisis multivariante. Madrid: Prentice Hall; 2005. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=320227

  26. Martínez Arias M, Hernández Lloreda MV, Hernández Lloreda MJ. Psicometría Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 2014. https://www.alianzaeditorial.es/libro/manuales/psicometria-maria-rosario-martinez-arias-9788420664064/

  27. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4 Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2003 [acceso 10/04/2019]. Dsiponible en: https://www.worldcat.org/title/spss-for-windows-stepbystepasimpleguideandreference110update/oclc/50695986/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com