Learning theories and tools for the assessment of core nursing competencies in simulation: A theoretical review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify the theories used to explain learning in simulation and to examine how these theories guided the assessment of learning outcomes related to core competencies in undergraduate nursing students. BACKGROUND: Nurse educators face the challenge of making explicit the outcomes of competency-based education, especially when competencies are conceptualized as holistic and context dependent. DESIGN: Theoretical review. DATA SOURCES: Research papers (N = 182) published between 1999-2015 describing simulation in nursing education. REVIEW METHODS: Two members of the research team extracted data from the papers, including theories used to explain how simulation could engender learning and tools used to assess simulation outcomes. Contingency tables were created to examine the associations between theories, outcomes and tools. RESULTS: Some papers (N = 79) did not provide an explicit theory. The 103 remaining papers identified one or more learning or teaching theories; the most frequent were the National League for Nursing/Jeffries Simulation Framework, Kolb's theory of experiential learning and Bandura's social cognitive theory and concept of self-efficacy. Students' perceptions of simulation, knowledge and self-confidence were the most frequently assessed, mainly via scales designed for the study where they were used. Core competencies were mostly assessed with an observational approach. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the fact that few studies examined the use of simulation in nursing education through learning theories and via assessment of core competencies. It also identified observational tools used to assess competencies in action, as holistic and context-dependent constructs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it