Technology Acceptance and Authenticity in Interactive Simulation: Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote and virtual simulations have gained prevalence during the COVID-19 pandemic as institutions maintain social distancing measures. Because of the challenges of cost, flexibility, and feasibility in traditional mannequin simulation, many health care educators have used videos as a remote simulation modality; however, videos provide minimal interactivity. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the role of interactivity in students' simulation experiences. We analyzed students' perceptions of technology acceptance and authenticity in interactive and noninteractive simulations. METHODS: Undergraduate nursing students participated in interactive and noninteractive simulations. The interactive simulation was conducted using interactive video simulation software that we developed, and the noninteractive simulation consisted of passively playing a video of the simulation. After each simulation, the students completed a 10-item technology acceptance questionnaire and 6-item authenticity questionnaire. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In addition, we performed an exploratory analysis to compare technology acceptance and authenticity in interactive local and remote simulations using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Data from 29 students were included in this study. Statistically significant differences were found between interactive and noninteractive simulations for overall technology acceptance (P<.001) and authenticity (P<.001). Analysis of the individual questionnaire items showed statistical significance for 3 out of the 10 technology acceptance items (P=.002, P=.002, and P=.004) and 5 out of the 6 authenticity items (P<.001, P<.001, P=.001, P=.003, and P=.005). The interactive simulation scored higher than the noninteractive simulation in all the statistically significant comparisons. Our exploratory analysis revealed that local simulation may promote greater perceptions of technology acceptance (P=.007) and authenticity (P=.027) than remote simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Students' perceptions of technology acceptance and authenticity were greater in interactive simulation than in noninteractive simulation. These results support the importance of interactivity in students' simulation experiences, especially in remote or virtual simulations in which students' involvement may be less active.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".