4.1 Review

Learning Curves in Health Professions Education Simulation Research A Systematic Review

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000477

Keywords

Learning curves; systematic review; medical education; learning curves in simulation; learning curves in health professions education; learning curves in simulation research; learning curves in technology enhanced simulation research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A systematic review on the reporting quality of learning curves in simulation-based education research found that many important elements were frequently omitted, and there was no improvement over time. Recommendations for enhancing the statistical, graphical, and conceptual reporting of learning curves were provided.
Learning curves are used in health professions education to graphically represent paths to competence and expertise. However, research using learning curves often omit important information. The authors conducted a systematic review of the reporting quality of learning curves in simulation-based education research to identify specific areas for improvement. Reviewers extracted information on graphical, statistical, and conceptual elements. The authors identified 230 eligible articles. Most learning curve elements were reported infrequently, including use of an optimal linking function, detailed description of feedback or learning intervention, use of advanced visualization techniques such as overlaying and stacking, and depiction of competency thresholds. Reporting did not improve over time for most elements. Reporting of learning curves in health professions education research is incomplete and often underutilizes their desirable properties. Recommendations for improvement of the statistical, graphical, and conceptual reporting of learning curves, as well as applications to simulation research and education, are presented.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available