Simulation experiences of paramedic students: a cross-cultural examination

Figures & data

Table 1 Distribution of demographic data

Variable	MU (%)	JUST (%)	Sig
Year level
Year 1	97 (31.7)	19 (9.3)
Year 2	104 (34.0)	42 (20.5)
Year 3	73 (23.9)	67 (32.7)
Year 4	32 (10.5)	77 (37.6)
			P<0.001
Sex
Male	102 (33.3)	96 (46.8)
Female	204 (66.7)	109 (53.2)
			P=0.002
Age (years)
<21	144 (47.1)	45 (22)
21–25	129 (42.2)	102 (49.8)
26–30	23 (7.5)	53 (25.9)
31–35	6 (2.0)	5 (2.4)
36–40	4 (1.3)	0 (0.0)
			P<0.001
Previous health care degree
Yes	35 (11.4)	24 (11.7)
No	271 (88.6)	181 (88.3)
			P<0.001
How many simulations with manikins have you actually been involved in?
<5	14 (4.6)	16 (7.8)
Between 5 and 10	73 (23.9)	31 (15.1)
Between 10 and 15	47 (15.4)	43 (21.0)
Between 15 and 20	52 (17.0)	46 (22.4)
>20	120 (39.2)	69 (33.7)
			P=0.018

Abbreviations: JUST, Jordan University of Science and Technology; MU, Monash University; Sig, significance.

Table 2 Comparative item-level results of the SSES between Australian and Jordanian cohorts (n=511)

Item	MU mean (SD)	JUST mean (SD)	Sig
The facilitator provided constructive criticism during the debriefing (item 1)	4.30 (0.58)	3.67 (0.93)	P<0.001
The facilitator summarized important issues during the debriefing (item 2)	4.30 (0.57)	3.74 (0.88)	P<0.001
I had the opportunity to reflect on and discuss my performance during the debriefing (item 3)	4.29 (0.65)	3.74 (0.88)	P<0.001
The debriefing provided an opportunity to ask questions (item 4)	4.43 (0.68)	4.09 (0.41)	P<0.001
The facilitator provided feedback that helped me to develop my clinical reasoning skills (item 5)	4.35 (0.61)	3.67 (0.89)	P<0.001
Reflecting on and discussing the simulation enhanced my learning (item 6)	4.42 (0.67)	3.76 (0.89)	P<0.001
The facilitator’s questions helped me to learn (item 7)	4.17 (0.65)	3.72 (0.86)	P<0.001
I received feedback during the debriefing that helped me to learn (item 8)	4.38 (0.60)	4.09 (0.42)	P<0.001
The facilitator made me feel comfortable and at ease during the debriefing (item 9)	4.02 (0.72)	3.67 (0.90)	P<0.001
The simulation developed my clinical reasoning skills (item 10)	4.36 (0.62)	3.51 (1.08)	P<0.001
The simulation developed my clinical decision-making ability (item 11)	4.37 (0.63)	3.59 (0.94)	P<0.001
The simulation enabled me to demonstrate my clinical reasoning skills (item 12)	4.34 (0.64)	3.94 (0.74)	P<0.001
The simulation helped me to recognize patient deterioration early (item 13)	3.77 (0.89)	3.62 (0.90)	P=0.067
This was a valuable learning experience (item 14)	4.48 (0.61)	3.62 (0.92)	P<0.001
The simulation caused me to reflect on my clinical ability (item 15)	4.40 (0.62)	3.64 (0.88)	P<0.001
The simulation tested my clinical ability (item 16)	4.46 (0.61)	4.04 (0.46)	P<0.001
The simulation helped me to apply what I learned from the case study (item 17)	4.30 (0.69)	4.11 (0.83)	P=0.004
The simulation helped me to recognize my clinical strengths and weaknesses (item 18)	4.43 (0.64)	3.68 (0.64)	P<0.001

Abbreviations: JUST, Jordan University of Science and Technology; MU, Monash University; SSES, Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale; SD, standard deviation.