Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of satisfaction, motivation and professional impact self-assessment

From: Comparative value of a simulation by gaming and a traditional teaching method to improve clinical reasoning skills necessary to detect patient deterioration: a randomized study in nursing students

Ā 

SG group (nā€‰=ā€‰73)

TT group (nā€‰=ā€‰73)

p

Are you globally satisfied with this training course?

1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied)

8.5Ā Ā±Ā 1.6

7.6Ā Ā±Ā 1.7

0.001*

Are you globally satisfied with the educational tool used for case-based learning?

1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied)

8.5Ā Ā±Ā 1.4

8.0Ā Ā±Ā 1.6

0.04

Do you think that this training course motivates you to learn?

1 (absolutely not) to 10 (agree absolutely)

8.7Ā Ā±Ā 1.9

7.7Ā Ā±Ā 2.0

0.003*

Do you think that this training will have an impact on your future professional work?

1 (absolutely not) to 10 (agree absolutely)

8.3Ā Ā±Ā 1.8

7.7Ā Ā±Ā 1.7

0.06

Would you recommend this training to students or colleagues?

1 (absolutely not) to 10 (agree absolutely)

8.8Ā Ā±Ā 1.7

7.8Ā Ā±Ā 2.0

0.002*

  1. Results are presented as meanā€‰Ā±ā€‰standard deviation or percentage. Comparisons were carried out with the use of the Studentā€™s t test or a Chi2 test. The Bonferroni criterion was set at alpha/5ā€‰=ā€‰0.01 to reach statistical significance;Ā *: p value less than 0.01 was considered significant