1.
Musa, Dahlia; Gonzalez, Laura; Penny, Heidi; Daher, Salam
Technology Acceptance and Authenticity in Interactive Simulation: Experimental Study Journal Article
In: Journal of Medical Education, vol. 9, pp. e40040, 2023.
@article{musa2023technology,
title = {Technology Acceptance and Authenticity in Interactive Simulation: Experimental Study},
author = {Dahlia Musa and Laura Gonzalez and Heidi Penny and Salam Daher},
url = {https://mededu.jmir.org/2023/1/e40040/},
doi = {doi:10.2196/40040},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-02-15},
urldate = {2023-02-15},
journal = {Journal of Medical Education},
volume = {9},
pages = {e40040},
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.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
2023
Dahlia Musa, Laura Gonzalez, Heidi Penny, Salam Daher
Technology Acceptance and Authenticity in Interactive Simulation: Experimental Study Journal Article
In: Journal of Medical Education, vol. 9, pp. e40040, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: 2023, active learning, authenticity, Dahila Musa, health care simulation, Heidi Penny, hello, Interactivity, Laura Gonzalez, nursing education, passive learning, remote learning, rivs, Salam Daher, technology acceptance
@article{musa2023technology,
title = {Technology Acceptance and Authenticity in Interactive Simulation: Experimental Study},
author = {Dahlia Musa and Laura Gonzalez and Heidi Penny and Salam Daher},
url = {https://mededu.jmir.org/2023/1/e40040/},
doi = {doi:10.2196/40040},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-02-15},
urldate = {2023-02-15},
journal = {Journal of Medical Education},
volume = {9},
pages = {e40040},
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.},
keywords = {2023, active learning, authenticity, Dahila Musa, health care simulation, Heidi Penny, hello, Interactivity, Laura Gonzalez, nursing education, passive learning, remote learning, rivs, Salam Daher, technology acceptance},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.