MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409246862 · doi:10.1080/10872981.2025.2486971

Development and validation of the QASSH scale: a tool for assessing the quality of simulation scenarios in healthcare education

2025· article· en· W4409246862 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Rivière, Guillaume Der Sahakian, Marie‐Laurence Tremblay, Gilles Chiniara

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education Online · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Health careQuality (philosophy)Medical educationData scienceMedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulation-based education has become essential for pre- and post-graduate training of healthcare professionals. However, there is no tool to help simulation educators or program managers in assessing the educational quality of simulation scenario scripts for team-based immersive simulation (IS), simulated participants (SP) and procedural simulation (PS). To that end, we developed the Quality Assessment of Simulation Scenario in Healthcare (QASSH) tool. This study aims at providing validity evidence for QASSH. We set up a francophone group of experts within the French-speaking Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SoFraSimS) network and designed this scale based on recently published best practices and our long experience in conceiving simulation scenarios. We tested it by submitting three scenarios of high, borderline and low quality for assessment to a group of experts, a third of which were involved in its development. Analysis of reliability and validity of the QASSH was done using the Standards for educational and psychological testing. Generalizability theory (GT) was used to assess the internal structure and reliability of the tool. The absolute reliability coefficients (G coefficients) calculated through GT were: 0.97 (IS), 0.96 (SP), and 0.98 (PS). G-facet analyses showed that no removal of a single item of QASSH significantly increased the G coefficient above 0.01 for any of the three variants. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.94 (IS), 0.94 (SP) and 0.97 (PS). Estimating the impact of the number of raters on reliability (i.e. D-studies) showed that two raters were enough to achieve a G coefficient above 0.85. The G study shows a high generalizability coefficient (≥0.90), which demonstrates high reliability. The response process evidence for validity provides evidence that no error was associated with using the instrument and its reliability was high with two raters. The QASSH is a tool to assess the quality of healthcare simulation scenarios and will be helpful to instructors wishing to build effective IS, PS and SPs scenarios.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.440 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Education OnlineSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207