Gender Differences in Psychological Safety, Academic Safety, Cognitive Load, and Debriefing Satisfaction in Simulation-Based Learning.
Young Sook Roh, Kie In Jang, S Barry Issenberg
Author Information
Young Sook Roh: Professor (Roh), Red Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Professor (Jang), College of Nursing, The Kyungbok University, Namyangju-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; and Professor (Issenberg), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
BACKGROUND: As there is an increasing trend in the number of male-identifying learners in undergraduate nursing education, a need exists to identify the gender differences in learners' perceptions regarding simulation-based learning. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the gender differences in psychological safety, academic safety, cognitive load, and debriefing satisfaction in simulation-based nursing education. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was implemented with 97 female and 95 male nursing students. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests or independent-samples t tests. RESULTS: Female nursing students reported a lower academic safety and higher intrinsic load than male nursing students. Male nursing students perceived a higher germane load than female nursing students. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of the present study was the identification of gender differences in participant perception of the simulation learning experience for effective simulation design.
Cabrera-Mino C, Shinnick MA, Moye S. Task-evoked pupillary responses in nursing simulation as an indicator of stress and cognitive load. Clin Simul Nurs. 2019;31(C):21–27. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2019.03.009
Díez N, Rodríguez-Díez MC, Nagore D, et al. A randomized trial of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for medical students: voice advisory mannequin compared to guidance provided by an instructor. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(4):234–241. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e31828e7196
Grady JL, Kehrer RG, Trusty CE, et al. Learning nursing procedures: the influence of simulator fidelity and student gender on teaching effectiveness. J Nurs Educ. 2008;47(9):403–408. doi:10.3928/01484834-20080901-09
Beischel KP. Variables affecting learning in a simulation experience: a mixed methods study. West J Nurs Res. 2013;35(2):226–247. doi:10.1177/0193945911408444
Durham CF, Cato ML, Lasater K. NLN/Jeffries simulation framework state of the science project: participant construct. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10(7):363–372. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2014.04.002
Choudhary R, Dullo P, Tandon RV. Gender differences in learning style preferences of first year medical students. Pak J Physiol. 2011;7(2):42–45.
Garber LL, Hyatt EM, Boya ÜÖ. Gender differences in learning preferences among participants of serious business games. Int J Manag Educ. 2017;15(2):11–29. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.001
Chiu HY, Kang YN, Wang WL, et al. Gender differences in the acquisition of suturing skills with the da Vinci surgical system. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020;119(1, pt 3):462–470. doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2019.06.013
Tamás É, Edelbring S, Hjelm C, Hult H, Gimm O. Gender and assigned role influences medical students' learning experience in interprofessional team training simulations. MedEdPublish. 2017;6(1):1–17. doi:10.15694/mep.2017.000028
Vogel D, Meyer M, Harendza S. Verbal and non-verbal communication skills including empathy during history taking of undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):157. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1260-9
Ali A, Subhi Y, Ringsted C, Konge L. Gender differences in the acquisition of surgical skills: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(11):3065–3073. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4092-2
Gotlieb R, Abitbol J, How JA, et al. Gender differences in how physicians access and process information. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019;27:50–53. doi:10.1016/j.gore.2018.12.008
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999
Kim WK, Kwon IS, Choi YK. Task conflict and learning behavior in work groups: the effects of group cohesiveness and psychological safety. J Int Trade Commerce. 2016;12(6):467–487.
Ganley BJ, Linnard-Palmer L. Academic safety during nursing simulation: perceptions of nursing students and faculty. Clin Simul Nurs. 2012;8(2):e49–e57. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2010.06.004
Roh YS, Ahn JW, Kim E, Kim J. Effects of prebriefing on psychological safety and learning outcomes. Clin Simul Nurs. 2018;25(C):12–19. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2018.10.001
Josephsen J. Cognitive load measurement, worked-out modeling, and simulation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2018;23:10–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2018.07.004
Na YH, Roh YS. Effects of peer-led debriefing on cognitive load, achievement emotions, and nursing performance. Clin Simul Nurs. 2021;55:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2021.03.008
Young JQ, Van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach. 2014;36(5):371–384. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290
De Jong T. Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr Sci. 2010;38:105–134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Roh YS, Jang KI. Survey of factors influencing learner engagement with simulation debriefing among nursing students. Nurs Health Sci. 2017;19(4):485–491. doi:10.1111/nhs.12371
Phrampus PE, O'Donnell JM. Debriefing using a structured and supported approach. In: Levine AI, DeMaria S, Schwartz AD, Sim AJ, eds. The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation. Springer; 2013:73–84. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_6
Park JE, Kim JH. Nursing students' psychological safety in high fidelity simulations: development of a new scale for psychometric evaluation. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;105:105017. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105017
Wang XT, Kruger DJ, Wilke A. Life history variables and risk-taking propensity. Evol Hum Behav. 2009;30(2):77–84. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.006
Wanless SB. The role of psychological safety in human development. Res Hum Dev. 2016;13(1):6–14. doi:10.1080/15427609.2016.1141283
Tsuei SH, Lee D, Ho C, Regehr G, Nimmon L. Exploring the construct of psychological safety in medical education. Acad Med. 2019;94:S28–S35. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002897
Stephen LA, Kostovich C, O'Rourke J. Psychological safety in simulation: prelicensure nursing students' perceptions. Clin Simul Nurs. 2020;47(C):25–31. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2020.06.010
Daniels AL, Morse C, Breman R. Psychological safety in simulation-based prelicensure nursing education: a narrative review. Nurse Educ. 2021;46(5):E99–E102. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000001057
Turner S, Harder N. Psychological safe environment: a concept analysis. Clin Simul Nurs. 2018;18:47–55. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2018.02.004
Chang HY, Wu HF, Chang YC, Tseng YS, Wang YC. The effects of a virtual simulation-based, mobile technology application on nursing students' learning achievement and cognitive load: randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;120:103948. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103948
Paas F, van Merriënboer JJG. Cognitive-load theory: methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2020;29(4):394–398. doi:10.1177/0963721420922183
Choi EJ. Relationships between metacognition, problem solving process, and debriefing experience in simulation as problem-based learning (S-PBL). J Korean Contents Assoc. 2015;16(1):459–469. doi:10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.01.459
Kim YJ, Yoo JH. The utilization of debriefing for simulation in healthcare: a literature review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;43:102698. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102698
Standards Committee INACSL, Decker S, Alinier G, et al. Healthcare simulation standards of best practice™ the debriefing process. Clin Simul Nurs. 2021;58:27–32. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011
MacLean S, Geddes F, Kelly M, Della P. Realism and presence in simulation: nursing student perceptions and learning outcomes. J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(6):330–338. doi:10.3928/01484834-20190521-03
