Sun, Dec 7, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 18, Issue 4 (2025)
JMED 2025, 18(4): 140-152 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SBMU.SME.REC.1401.079
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Siavashpour Z, Khoshgoftar Z, Sohrabi S, Bosak S. Advancements in simulation-based assessments for health professionals: insights from a scoping review. JMED 2025; 18 (4) :140-152
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2385-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2385-en.html
1- Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Education and Learning Technologies, Shahid Beheshti University of Medicine, Tehran, Iran & Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Shohada Tajrish Educational Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Education and Learning Technologies, Shahid Beheshti University of Medicine, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Dezful University of Medical Sciences, Dezful, Iran ,sarvinbosak@gmail.com
2- Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Education and Learning Technologies, Shahid Beheshti University of Medicine, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Dezful University of Medical Sciences, Dezful, Iran ,
Abstract: (190 Views)
Background and Objective: Over the past 20 years, simulation has emerged as a key instrument in healthcare education, first for training and more recently for performance evaluation. However, the lack of clinical relevance and realism in traditional assessment methods has drawn criticism. Given their increasing use and the difficulty of assessing clinical competence, this scoping review was conducted to investigate the scope and features of Simulation-Based Assessments (SBAs) in health professions education.
Materials and Methods: This study adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Embase all the way through. We also manually searched two important journals, Clinical Simulation in Nursing and Simulation in Healthcare, for articles that were published between 2021 and 2024 and were related to the topic. We also looked through the reference lists of relevant reviews. After removing duplicates in EndNote X20, 49 studies that met the criteria were included and analyzed using descriptive and thematic content analysis in Microsoft Excel.
Results: The review pinpointed essential target demographics, applications, challenges, benefits, drawbacks, and requisite conditions pertaining to SBAs. Out of the 49 studies included, most were from the US and looked at specialists, emergency medicine providers, and nurses. Three main simulation modalities were identified: human participant (e.g., standardized patients), equipment-based simulators (both low and high-fidelity), and computer-based (virtual reality/screen-based). The challenges primarily pertained to the study's realism, validity, reliability, and feasibility.
Conclusions: More and more people in healthcare education are seeing simulation-based assessments as a useful way to test clinical competence and safety. Despite its advantages, SBA implementation faces significant challenges related to high cost and limitations in realism. Before adding SBAs to assessment frameworks, it is important to have clear rules and plans.
Background and Objective: Over the past 20 years, simulation has emerged as a key instrument in healthcare education, first for training and more recently for performance evaluation. However, the lack of clinical relevance and realism in traditional assessment methods has drawn criticism. Given their increasing use and the difficulty of assessing clinical competence, this scoping review was conducted to investigate the scope and features of Simulation-Based Assessments (SBAs) in health professions education.
Materials and Methods: This study adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Embase all the way through. We also manually searched two important journals, Clinical Simulation in Nursing and Simulation in Healthcare, for articles that were published between 2021 and 2024 and were related to the topic. We also looked through the reference lists of relevant reviews. After removing duplicates in EndNote X20, 49 studies that met the criteria were included and analyzed using descriptive and thematic content analysis in Microsoft Excel.
Results: The review pinpointed essential target demographics, applications, challenges, benefits, drawbacks, and requisite conditions pertaining to SBAs. Out of the 49 studies included, most were from the US and looked at specialists, emergency medicine providers, and nurses. Three main simulation modalities were identified: human participant (e.g., standardized patients), equipment-based simulators (both low and high-fidelity), and computer-based (virtual reality/screen-based). The challenges primarily pertained to the study's realism, validity, reliability, and feasibility.
Conclusions: More and more people in healthcare education are seeing simulation-based assessments as a useful way to test clinical competence and safety. Despite its advantages, SBA implementation faces significant challenges related to high cost and limitations in realism. Before adding SBAs to assessment frameworks, it is important to have clear rules and plans.
Materials and Methods: This study adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Embase all the way through. We also manually searched two important journals, Clinical Simulation in Nursing and Simulation in Healthcare, for articles that were published between 2021 and 2024 and were related to the topic. We also looked through the reference lists of relevant reviews. After removing duplicates in EndNote X20, 49 studies that met the criteria were included and analyzed using descriptive and thematic content analysis in Microsoft Excel.
Results: The review pinpointed essential target demographics, applications, challenges, benefits, drawbacks, and requisite conditions pertaining to SBAs. Out of the 49 studies included, most were from the US and looked at specialists, emergency medicine providers, and nurses. Three main simulation modalities were identified: human participant (e.g., standardized patients), equipment-based simulators (both low and high-fidelity), and computer-based (virtual reality/screen-based). The challenges primarily pertained to the study's realism, validity, reliability, and feasibility.
Conclusions: More and more people in healthcare education are seeing simulation-based assessments as a useful way to test clinical competence and safety. Despite its advantages, SBA implementation faces significant challenges related to high cost and limitations in realism. Before adding SBAs to assessment frameworks, it is important to have clear rules and plans.
Background and Objective: Over the past 20 years, simulation has emerged as a key instrument in healthcare education, first for training and more recently for performance evaluation. However, the lack of clinical relevance and realism in traditional assessment methods has drawn criticism. Given their increasing use and the difficulty of assessing clinical competence, this scoping review was conducted to investigate the scope and features of Simulation-Based Assessments (SBAs) in health professions education.
Materials and Methods: This study adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Embase all the way through. We also manually searched two important journals, Clinical Simulation in Nursing and Simulation in Healthcare, for articles that were published between 2021 and 2024 and were related to the topic. We also looked through the reference lists of relevant reviews. After removing duplicates in EndNote X20, 49 studies that met the criteria were included and analyzed using descriptive and thematic content analysis in Microsoft Excel.
Results: The review pinpointed essential target demographics, applications, challenges, benefits, drawbacks, and requisite conditions pertaining to SBAs. Out of the 49 studies included, most were from the US and looked at specialists, emergency medicine providers, and nurses. Three main simulation modalities were identified: human participant (e.g., standardized patients), equipment-based simulators (both low and high-fidelity), and computer-based (virtual reality/screen-based). The challenges primarily pertained to the study's realism, validity, reliability, and feasibility.
Conclusions: More and more people in healthcare education are seeing simulation-based assessments as a useful way to test clinical competence and safety. Despite its advantages, SBA implementation faces significant challenges related to high cost and limitations in realism. Before adding SBAs to assessment frameworks, it is important to have clear rules and plans.
Article Type : Review |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2025/01/10 | Accepted: 2025/11/18 | Published: 2025/11/19
Received: 2025/01/10 | Accepted: 2025/11/18 | Published: 2025/11/19
References
1. O'Donovan BM, den Outer B, Price M, Lloyd A. What makes good feedback good? Stud High Educ. 2021;46(2):318-29. [DOI:10.1080/03075079.2019.1630812]
2. Ryall T, Judd BK, Gordon CJ. Simulation-based assessments in health professional education: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:69-82. [DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S92695]
3. Cant RP, Cooper SJ. Simulation-based learning in nurse education: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(1):3-15. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05240.x]
4. Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002;287(2):226-35. [DOI:10.1001/jama.287.2.226]
5. Swanson DB, Norman GR, Linn RL. Performance-based assessment: lessons from the health professions. Educ Res. 1995;24(5):5-11. [DOI:10.3102/0013189X024005005]
6. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29(9-10):855-71. [DOI:10.1080/01421590701775453]
7. Jones F, Passos-Neto CE, Braghiroli OFM. Simulation in medical education: brief history and methodology. Princ Pract Clin Res. 2015;1(2). [DOI:10.21801/ppcrj.2015.12.8]
8. Qayumi K, Pachev G, Zheng B, Ziv A, Koval V, Badiei S, et al. Status of simulation in health care education: an international survey. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014;5:457-67. [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S65451]
9. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2004;13 Suppl 1:i2-i10. [DOI:10.1136/qhc.13.suppl_1.i2]
10. Koukourikos K, Tsaloglidou A, Kourkouta L, Papathanasiou IV, Iliadis C, Fratzana A, et al. Simulation in clinical nursing education. Acta Inform Med. 2021;29(1):15-20. [DOI:10.5455/aim.2021.29.15-20]
11. Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(4):252-6. [DOI:10.1097/01.SIH.0000242724.08501.63]
12. Ker J, Mole L, Bradley P. Early introduction to interprofessional learning: a simulated ward environment. Med Educ. 2003;37(3):248-55. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01439.x]
13. Rosen KR. The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care. 2008;23(2):157-66. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2007.12.004]
14. Bland AJ, Topping A, Wood B. A concept analysis of simulation as a learning strategy in the education of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(7):664-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.10.013]
15. Seropian MA, Brown K, Gavilanes JS, Driggers B. An approach to simulation program development. J Nurs Educ. 2004;43(4):170-4. [DOI:10.3928/01484834-20040401-02]
16. Tun JK, Alinier G, Tang J, Kneebone RL. Redefining simulation fidelity for healthcare education. Simul Gaming. 2015;46(2):159-74. [DOI:10.1177/1046878115576103]
17. Foronda C, Gattamorta K, Snowden K, Bauman EB. Use of virtual clinical simulation to improve communication skills of baccalaureate nursing students: a pilot study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(6):e53-e7. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.10.007]
18. Rizzolo MA, Kardong-Edgren S, Oermann MH, Jeffries PR. The National League for Nursing Project to Explore the Use of Simulation for High-Stakes Assessment: process, outcomes, and recommendations. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(5):299-303. [DOI:10.5480/15-1639]
19. Zhang L, Patterson F, Penman A, Forbes R. Understanding simulation-based learning for health professions students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2024. [DOI:10.1007/s10459-024-10384-6]
20. Khalil H, Jia R, Moraes EB, Munn Z, Alexander L, Peters MDJ, et al. Scoping reviews and their role in identifying research priorities. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025;181:111712. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111712]
21. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. [DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69]
22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group*. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9. [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135]
23. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. 2015.
24. Heiner JD, Proffitt AM, McArthur TJ. The ability of emergency nurses to detect simulated long bone fractures with portable ultrasound. Int Emerg Nurs. 2011;19(3):120-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.ienj.2010.08.004]
25. Srinivasan M, Hwang JC, West D, Yellowlees PM. Assessment of clinical skills using simulator technologies. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30(6):505-15. [DOI:10.1176/appi.ap.30.6.505]
26. Weidner AC, Gimpel JR, Boulet JR, Solomon M. Using standardized patients to assess the communication skills of graduating physicians for the comprehensive osteopathic medical licensing examination (COMLEX) level 2-performance evaluation (level 2-PE). Teach Learn Med. 2010;22(1):8-15. [DOI:10.1080/10401330903445604]
27. Dunkley M. Competence assessment using simulation. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2000;9(5):341-5. [DOI:10.3109/13645700009061456]
28. Shah J, Darzi A, editors. Simulation and skills assessment. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Medical Imaging and Augmented Reality; 2001 Jun 10-12; Shatin, Hong Kong, China. IEEE; 2001. p. 8-12.
29. Steinfort DP, Yong YH, Byrne T, Gorelik A, Colt H, Irving LB. Assessment of bronchoscopic dexterity and procedural competency in a low-fidelity simulation model. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2018;25(3):198-203. [DOI:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000481]
30. Black S, Nestel D, Kneebone R, Wolfe J. Assessment of surgical competence at carotid endarterectomy under local anaesthesia in a simulated operating theatre. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):511-6. [DOI:10.1002/bjs.6938]
31. Crosby E. The role of simulator-based assessments in physician competency evaluations. Can J Anaesth. 2010;57(7):627-35. [DOI:10.1007/s12630-010-9323-3]
32. Glavin RJ, Gaba DM. Challenges and opportunities in simulation and assessment. Simul Healthc. 2008;3(2):69-71. [DOI:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31817bb8f6]
33. Grantcharov TP, Carstensen L, Schulze S. Objective assessment of gastrointestinal endoscopy skills using a virtual reality simulator. JSLS. 2005;9(2):130-3.
34. Konge L, Annema J, Clementsen P, Minddal V, Vilmann P, Ringsted C. Using virtual-reality simulation to assess performance in endobronchial ultrasound. Respiration. 2013;86(1):59-65. [DOI:10.1159/000350428]
35. Levine AI, Schwartz AD, Bryson EO, DeMaria Jr S. Role of simulation in US physician licensure and certification. Mt Sinai J Med. 2012;79(1):140-53. [DOI:10.1002/msj.21291]
36. Lien CA, Warner MA, Rathmell JP. Simulation for assessment of the practice of board-certified anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2017;127(3):410-2. [DOI:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001792]
37. Macario A. Can physician performance be assessed via simulation? Anesthesiology. 2014;120(1):18-21. [DOI:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000056]
38. Noveanu J, Amsler F, Ummenhofer W, von Wyl T, Zuercher M. Assessment of simulated emergency scenarios: are trained observers necessary? Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(4):511-24. [DOI:10.1080/10903127.2017.1302528]
39. Qian J, Rama A, Wang E, Wang T, Hess O, Khoury M, et al. Assessing pediatric life support skills using augmented reality medical simulation with eye tracking: a pilot study. J Educ Perioper Med. 2022;24(3):E692. [DOI:10.46374/VolXXIV_Issue3_Qian]
40. Ross BK, Metzner J. Simulation for maintenance of certification. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95(4):893-905. [DOI:10.1016/j.suc.2015.04.010]
41. Rovamo L, Mattila MM, Andersson S, Rosenberg P. Assessment of newborn resuscitation skills of physicians with a simulator manikin. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96(5):F383-9. [DOI:10.1136/adc.2010.194043]
42. Sanford DI, Ma R, Ghoreifi A, Haque TF, Nguyen JH, Hung AJ. Association of suturing technical skill assessment scores between virtual reality simulation and live surgery. J Endourol. 2022;36(10):1388-94. [DOI:10.1089/end.2022.0158]
43. Zupanc CM, Wallis GM, Hill A, Burgess-Limerick R, Riek S, Plooy AM, et al. Assessing colonoscopic inspection skill using a virtual withdrawal simulation: a preliminary validation of performance metrics. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):118. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-017-0948-6]
44. Ennen CS, Satin AJ. Training and assessment in obstetrics: the role of simulation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24(6):747-58. [DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.03.003]
45. Skube ME, Witthuhn S, Mulier K, Boucher B, Lusczek E, Beilman GJ. Assessment of pre-hospital hemorrhage and airway care using a simulation model. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85(1):27-32. [DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000001800]
46. O'Reilly DJ. Computer simulation in mass emergency and disaster response: an evaluation of its effectiveness as a tool for demonstrating strategic competency in emergency department medical responders [dissertation]. Detroit (MI): Wayne State University; 2011.
47. Crannell C. Chemotherapy administration: using simulation case-based scenarios to assess chemotherapy competency. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39(1):19-22. [DOI:10.1188/12.ONF.19-22]
48. Heyes ME, Schnitzen L, Starr DG, Vacchiano C, Muckler VC, Thiemann L, et al. Recertification and reentry to practice for nurse anesthetists: determining core competencies and evaluating performance via high-fidelity simulation technology. J Nurs Regul. 2018;8(4):43-55. [DOI:10.1016/S2155-8256(17)30181-3]
49. Hinton JE, Mays MZ, Hagler D, Randolph P, Brooks R, DeFalco N, et al. Measuring post-licensure competence with simulation: the nursing performance profile. J Nurs Regul. 2012;3(2):45-53. [DOI:10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30219-2]
50. Hock S, Sergel M, Christian E, Carizey R, Perumalsamy P, Patwari R, et al. Development and assessment of a simulation model of focused and ongoing professional practice evaluations. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(4):S114-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.08.308]
51. Kardong-Edgren S, Hanberg AD, Keenan C, Ackerman AA, Chambers K. A discussion of high-stakes testing: an extension of a 2009 INACSL conference roundtable. Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7(1):e19-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecns.2010.02.002]
52. Rizzolo MA, Kardong-Edgren S, Oermann MH, Jeffries PR. The National League for Nursing project to explore the use of simulation for high-stakes assessment: process, outcomes, and recommendations. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(5):299-303. [DOI:10.5480/15-1639]
53. LeFlore JL, Anderson M. Effectiveness of 2 methods to teach and evaluate new content to neonatal transport personnel using high-fidelity simulation. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2008;22(4):319-28. [DOI:10.1097/01.JPN.0000341364.60693.70]
54. Daupin J, Atkinson S, Bédard P, Pelchat V, Lebel D, Bussières JF. Medication errors room: a simulation to assess the medical, nursing and pharmacy staffs' ability to identify errors related to the medication-use system. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(6):911-20. [DOI:10.1111/jep.12558]
55. MacFarlane B, Bergin J, Peterson GM. Assessment and management of serotonin syndrome in a simulated patient study of Australian community pharmacies. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(2):703. [DOI:10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.703]
56. Lee KHK, Grantham H, Boyd R. Comparison of high and low-fidelity mannequins for clinical performance assessment. Emerg Med Australas. 2008;20(6):508-14. [DOI:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2008.01137.x]
57. Thomsen ASS, Smith P, Subhi Y, Cour ML, Tang L, Saleh GM, et al. High correlation between performance on a virtual-reality simulator and real-life cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(3):307-11. [DOI:10.1111/aos.13275]
58. Alotaibi FE, AlZhrani GA, Mullah MAS, Sabbagh AJ, Azarnoush H, Winkler-Schwartz A, et al. Assessing bimanual performance in brain tumor resection with NeuroTouch, a virtual reality simulator. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2015;11(1):89-98. [DOI:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000631]
59. Brazil V. Performance assessment and simulation fidelity for dummies. Emerg Med Australas. 2008;20(5):456-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2008.01129.x]
60. Carroll JD, Messenger JC. Medical simulation: the new tool for training and skill assessment. Perspect Biol Med. 2008;51(1):47-60. [DOI:10.1353/pbm.2008.0003]
61. Hall AK, Chaplin T, McColl T, Petrosoniak A, Caners K, Rocca N, et al. Harnessing the power of simulation for assessment: consensus recommendations for the use of simulation-based assessment in emergency medicine. CJEM. 2020;22(2):194-203. [DOI:10.1017/cem.2019.488]
62. Decker S, Utterback VA, Thomas MB, Mitchell M, Sportsman S. Assessing continued competency through simulation: a call for stringent action. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2011;32(2):120-5. [DOI:10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.120]
63. Boulet JR. Summative assessment in medicine: the promise of simulation for high-stakes evaluation. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1017-24. [DOI:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00228.x]
64. Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. The use of clinical simulations in assessment. Med Educ. 2003;37 Suppl 1:65-71. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2923.37.s1.8.x]
65. Bick JS, DeMaria Jr S, Kennedy JD, Schwartz AD, Weiner MM, Levine AI, et al. Comparison of expert and novice performance of a simulated transesophageal echocardiography examination. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(5):329-34. [DOI:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31829068df]
66. Holzmacher J, Sarani B, Puche A, Granite G, Shalin V, Pugh K, et al. Can hyper-realistic physical models of peripheral vessel exposure and fasciotomy replace cadavers for performance assessment? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(1):130-5. [DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000001419]
67. Podolsky DJ, Fisher DM, Riff KWW, Zuker RM, Drake JM, Forrest CR. Assessing performance in simulated cleft palate repair using a novel video recording setup. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(6):687-93. [DOI:10.1177/1055665620913178]
68. Nabzdyk CS, Bittner EA. One (not so small) step for simulation-based competency assessment in critical care. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):1026-7. [DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003101]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
