IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v22y2020i2p243-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the learning effects of debriefing modalities for the care of premature infants

Author

Listed:
  • Myung‐Nam Lee
  • Shin‐Jeong Kim
  • Kyung‐Ah Kang
  • Sunghee Kim

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the learning effects of debriefing methods used in the simulation of prematurity care by measuring: (i) academic self‐efficacy; (ii) confidence in performance; (iii) self‐assessed communication skills; and (iv) satisfaction. We employed a quasi‐experimental design with three experimental groups that experienced instructor‐directed, self‐directed, and video‐assisted, self‐directed debriefing, respectively. Participants were 146 senior nursing students from three nursing schools. To compare learning effects, the same developed scenario for prematurity care was applied to all three groups. Significant differences were observed in the mean scores for the study variables among the three groups. The post‐hoc analysis showed that the video‐assisted, self‐directed debriefing group obtained the highest mean score difference for confidence in performance, self‐assessed communication skills, and satisfaction with the debriefing method. Thus, video‐assisted, self‐directed debriefing could be the most effective debriefing method for students.

Suggested Citation

  • Myung‐Nam Lee & Shin‐Jeong Kim & Kyung‐Ah Kang & Sunghee Kim, 2020. "Comparing the learning effects of debriefing modalities for the care of premature infants," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 243-253, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:22:y:2020:i:2:p:243-253
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12662
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12662?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Young Sook Roh & Kie In Jang, 2017. "Survey of factors influencing learner engagement with simulation debriefing among nursing students," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 485-491, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Angelo Dante & Carmen La Cerra & Valeria Caponnetto & Vittorio Masotta & Alessia Marcotullio & Luca Bertocchi & Fabio Ferraiuolo & Cristina Petrucci & Loreto Lancia, 2022. "Dose–Response Relationship between High-Fidelity Simulation and Intensive Care Nursing Students’ Learning Outcomes: An Italian Multimethod Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Jon Viktor Haugom & Solveig Struksnes, 2024. "Can Facilitators’ Need for Control Influence Students’ Learning Experience through Simulation? - A Qualitative Study on Simulation in Nursing Education," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 55(1), pages 109-127, February.
    3. Randi Tosterud & Kristin Kjølberg & Arnhild Vestnes Kongshaug & Jon Viktor Haugom, 2020. "Exploration of Two Different Structures for Debriefing in Simulation: The Influence of the Structure on the Facilitator Role," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 243-257, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:22:y:2020:i:2:p:243-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1442-2018 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.