assignment

formative assessment journal articles

Please note that Internet Explorer version 8.x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. Please refer to this support page for more information.

  • Download full issue

Elsevier

International Journal of Educational Research

Formative assessment: a systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice.

Identifies various prerequisites for formative assessment in the classroom.

Distinguishes between assessment for learning and data-based decision making.

Focusses on the role of the teacher implementing formative assessment in the classroom.

Results highlight importance of assessment and data literacy, teacher collaboration, and pedagogical content knowledge.

Presents a conceptual model of teacher prerequisites for formative assessment implementation.

Formative assessment has the potential to support teaching and learning in the classroom. This study reviewed the literature on formative assessment to identify prerequisites for effective use of formative assessment by teachers. The review sought to address the following research question: What teacher prerequisites need to be in place for using formative assessment in their classroom practice? The review was conducted using a systematic approach. A total of 54 studies were included in this review. The results show that (1) knowledge and skills (e.g., data literacy), (2), psychological factors (e.g., social pressure), and (3) social factors (e.g., collaboration) influence the use of formative assessment. The prerequisites identified can inform professional development initiatives regarding formative assessment, as well as teacher education programs.

Cited by (0)

Current affiliation: School of Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia.

July 31, 2018.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Using formative evaluation methods to improve clinical implementation efforts: Description and an example

Affiliations.

Formative evaluation, a rigorous assessment process to identify potential and actual influences on the implementation process, is a necessary first step prior to launching any implementation effort. Without formative evaluation, intervention studies may fail to translate into meaningful patient care or public health outcomes or across different contexts. Formative evaluation usually consists of qualitative methods, but may involve quantitative or mixed methods. A unique aspect of formative evaluation is that data are shared with the implementation team during the study in order to adapt and improve the process of implementation during the course of the study or improvement activity. In implementation science, and specifically within formative evaluation, it is imperative that a theory or conceptual model or framework guide the selection of the various individual, organizational or contextual factors to be assessed. Data from these theory-based constructs can translate into the development and specification of implementation strategies to support the uptake of the intervention. In this article, we describe different types of formative evaluations (developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive), and then present a formative evaluation case study from a real-world implementation study within several academic pain clinics, guided by the Theory of Diffusion of Innovation.

Keywords: Formative evaluation; Implementation strategies; Qualitative methods; Theory of diffusion of innovation.

Published by Elsevier B.V.

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

full text provider logo

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Taylor and Francis Online homepage

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and staff reflections.

Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days

This article reports on the implementation of formative e-assessments in courses taken by first-year students. The central aim is to measure the effectiveness of the formative e-assessments with reference to the student voice and staff reflections. Students engaged with the formative assessments and the evidence gathered via questionnaires show that students perceived that formative e-assessments helped them to monitor their progress; encouraged further study and increased their learning and understanding. The findings also allowed academics to reflect on the benefits of adopting formative e-assessments to foster student engagement and permit early intervention. By focussing on the student view (rather than student performance) the findings add to our understanding of the benefits of integrating regular formative assessment in first-year courses.

Acknowledgements

The contributors would like to sincerely thank Professor Catriona Paisey, Professor Lee Parker and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Log in via your institution

Log in to taylor & francis online, restore content access.

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

Comparing formative and summative simulation-based assessment in undergraduate nursing students: nursing competency acquisition and clinical simulation satisfaction

BMC Nursing volume  20 , Article number:  92 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Formative and summative evaluation are widely employed in simulated-based assessment. The aims of our study were to evaluate the acquisition of nursing competencies through clinical simulation in undergraduate nursing students and to compare their satisfaction with this methodology using these two evaluation strategies.

Two hundred eighteen undergraduate nursing students participated in a cross-sectional study, using a mixed-method. MAES© (self-learning methodology in simulated environments) sessions were developed to assess students by formative evaluation. Objective Structured Clinical Examination sessions were conducted to assess students by summative evaluation. Simulated scenarios recreated clinical cases of critical patients. Students´ performance in all simulated scenarios were assessed using checklists. A validated questionnaire was used to evaluate satisfaction with clinical simulation. Quantitative data were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 software, whereas qualitative data were analysed using the ATLAS-ti version 8.0 software.

Most nursing students showed adequate clinical competence. Satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher when students were assessed using formative evaluation. The main students’ complaints with summative evaluation were related to reduced time for performing simulated scenarios and increased anxiety during their clinical performance.

The best solution to reduce students’ complaints with summative evaluation is to orient them to the simulated environment. It should be recommended to combine both evaluation strategies in simulated-based assessment, providing students feedback in summative evaluation, as well as evaluating their achievement of learning outcomes in formative evaluation.

Peer Review reports

Clinical simulation methodology has increased exponentially over the last few years and has gained acceptance in nursing education. Simulation-based education (SBE) is considered an effective educational methodology for nursing students to achieve the competencies needed for their professional future [ 1 – 5 ]. In addition, simulation-based educational programs have demonstrated to be more useful than traditional teaching methodologies [ 4 , 6 ]. As a result, most nursing faculties are integrating this methodology into their study plans [ 7 ]. SBE has the potential to shorten the learning curve for students, increase the fusion between theoretical knowledge and clinical practice, establish deficient areas in students, develop communication and technical skills acquisition, improve patient safety, standardise the curriculum and teaching contents, and offer observations of real-time clinical decision making [ 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 ].

SBE offers an excellent opportunity to perform not only observed competency-based teaching, but also the assessment of these competencies. Simulated-based assessment (SBA) is aimed at evaluating various professional skills, including knowledge, technical and clinical skills, communication, and decision-making; as well as higher-order competencies such as patient safety and teamwork skills [ 1 – 4 , 10 ]. Compared with other traditional assessment methods (i.e. written or oral test), SBA offers the opportunity to evaluate the actual performance in an environment similar to the ‘real’ clinical practice, assess multidimensional professional competencies, and present standard clinical scenarios to all students [ 1 – 4 , 10 ].

The main SBA strategies are formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is conducted to establish students’ progression during the course [ 11 ]. This evaluation strategy is helpful to educators in improving students’ deficient areas and testing their knowledge [ 12 ]. Employing this evaluation strategy, educators give students feedback about their performance. Subsequently, students self-reflect to evaluate their learning and determine their deficient areas. In this sense, formative evaluation includes an ideal phase to achieve the purposes of strategy: the debriefing [ 13 ]. International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL) defines debriefing as a reflective process immediately following the simulation-based experience where ‘participants explore their emotions and question, reflect, and provide feedback to one another’. Its aim is ‘to move toward assimilation and accommodation to transfer learning to future situations’ [ 14 ]. Therefore, debriefing is a basic component for learning to be effective after the simulation [ 15 , 16 ]. Furthermore, MAES© (according to its Spanish initials of self-learning methodology in simulated environments) is a clinical simulation methodology created to perform formative evaluations [ 17 ]. MAES© allows evaluating specifically nursing competencies acquired by several nursing students at the same time. MAES© is structured through the union of other active learning methodologies such as self-directed learning, problem-based learning, peer education and simulation-based learning. Specifically, students acquire and develop competencies through self-directed learning, as they voluntarily choose competencies to learn. Furthermore, this methodology encourages students to be the protagonists of their learning process, since they can choose the case they want to study, design the clinical simulation scenario and, finally, actively participate during the debriefing phase [ 17 ]. This methodology meets all the requirements defined by the INACSL Standards of Best Practice [ 18 ]. Compared to traditional simulation-based learning (where simulated clinical scenarios are designed by the teaching team and led by facilitators), the MAES© methodology (where simulated clinical scenarios are designed and led by students) provides students nursing a better learning process and clinical performance [ 19 ]. Currently, the MAES© methodology is used in clinical simulation sessions with nursing students in some universities, not only in Spain but also in Norway, Portugal and Brazil [ 20 ].

In contrast, summative evaluation is used to establish the learning outcomes achieved by students at the end of the course [ 11 ]. This evaluation strategy is helpful to educators in evaluating students’ learning, the competencies acquired by them and their academic achievement [ 12 ]. This assessment is essential in the education process to determine readiness and competence for certification and accreditation [ 10 , 21 ]. Accordingly, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is commonly conducted in SBA as a summative evaluation to evaluate students’ clinical competence [ 22 ]. Consequently, OSCE has been used by educational institutions as a valid and reliable method of assessment. OSCE most commonly consists of a ‘round-robin’ of multiple short testing stations, in each of which students must demonstrate defined clinical competencies, while educators evaluate their performance according to predetermined criteria using a standardized marking scheme, such as checklists. Students must rotate through these stations where educators assess students’ performance in clinical examination, technical skills, clinical judgment and decision-making skill during the nursing process [ 22 , 23 ]. This strategy of summative evaluation incorporates actors performing as simulated patients. Therefore, OSCE allows assessing students’ clinical competence in a real-life simulated clinical environment. After simulated scenarios, this evaluation strategy provides educators with an opportunity to give students constructive feedback according to their achieved results in the checklist [ 10 , 21 – 23 ].

Despite both evaluation strategies are widely employed in SBA, there is scarce evidence about the possible differences in satisfaction with clinical simulation when nursing students are assessed using formative and summative evaluation. Considering the high satisfaction with the formative evaluation perceived by our students during the implementation of the MAES© methodology, we were concerned if this satisfaction would be similar using the same simulated clinical scenarios through a summative evaluation. Additionally, we were concerned about the reasons why this satisfaction would be different using both strategies of SBA. Therefore, the aims of our study were to evaluate the acquisition of nursing competencies through clinical simulation methodology in undergraduate nursing students, as well as to compare their satisfaction with this methodology using two strategies of SBA, such as formative and summative evaluation. In this sense, our research hypothesis is that both strategies of SBA are effective in acquiring nursing competencies, but student satisfaction with the formative evaluation is higher than with the summative evaluation.

Study design and setting

A descriptive cross-sectional study using a mixed-method and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data. The study was conducted from September 2018 to May 2019 in a University Centre of Health Sciences in Madrid (Spain). This centre offers Physiotherapy and Nursing Degrees.

Participants

The study included 3rd-year undergraduate students (106 students participated in MAES© sessions within the subject ‘Nursing care for critical patients’) and 4th-year undergraduate students (112 students participated in OSCE sessions within the subject ‘Supervised clinical placements – Advanced level’) in Nursing Degree. It should be noted, 4th-year undergraduate students had completed all their clinical placements and they had to approve OSCE sessions to achieve their certification.

Clinical simulation sessions

To assess the clinical performance of 3rd-year undergraduate students using formative evaluation, MAES© sessions were conducted. This methodology consists of 6 elements in a minimum of two sessions [ 17 ]: Team selection and creation of group identity (students are grouped into teams and they create their own identity), voluntary choice of subject of study (each team will freely choose a topic that will serve as inspiration for the design of a simulation scenario), establishment of baseline and programming skills to be acquired through brainstorming (the students, by teams, decide what they know about the subject and then what they want to learn from it, as well as the clinical and non- technical skills they would like to acquire with the case they have chosen), design of a clinical simulation scenario in which the students practice the skills to be acquired (each team commits to designing a scenario in the simulation room), execution of the simulated clinical experience (another team, different from the one that has designed the case, will enter the high-fidelity simulation room and will have a simulation experience), and finally debriefing and presentation of the acquired skills (in addition to analysing the performance of the participants in the scenario, the students explain what they learned during the design of the case and look for evidence of the learning objectives).

Alternatively, OSCE sessions were developed to assess the clinical performance of 4th-year undergraduate students using summative evaluation. Both MAES© and OSCE sessions recreated critically ill patients with diagnoses of Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), acute coronary syndrome haemorrhage in a postsurgical, and severe traumatic brain injury.

It should be noted that the implementation of all MAES© and OSCEs sessions followed the Standards of Best Practice recommended by the INACSL [ 14 , 24 – 26 ]. In this way, all the stages included in a high-fidelity session were accomplished: pre-briefing, briefing, simulated scenario, and debriefing. Specifically, a session with all nursing students was carried out 1 week before the performance of OSCE stations to establish a safe psychological learning environment and familiarize students with this summative evaluation. In this pre-briefing phase, we implemented several activities based on practices recommended by the INACSL Standards Committee [ 24 , 25 ] and Rudolph, Raemer, and Simon [ 27 ] for establishing a psychologically safe context. Although traditional OSCEs do not usually include the debriefing phase, we decided to include this phase in all OSCEs carried out in our university centre, since we consider this phase is quite relevant to nursing students’ learning process and their imminent professional career.

Critically ill patient’s role was performed by an advanced simulator mannequin (NursingAnne® by Laerdal Medical AS) in all simulated scenarios. A confederate (a health professional who acts in a simulated scenario) performed the role of a registered nurse or a physician who could help students as required. Occasionally, this confederate could perform the role of a relative of a critically ill patient. Nursing students formed work teams of 2–3 students in all MAES© and OSCE sessions. Specifically, each work team formed in MAES© sessions received a brief description of simulated scenario 2 months before and students had to propose 3 NIC (Nursing Interventions Classification) interventions [ 28 ], and 5 related nursing activities with each of them, to resolve the critical situation. In contrast, the critical situation was presented to each work team formed in OSCE sessions for 2 min before entering the simulated scenario. During all simulated experiences, professors were monitoring and controlling the simulation with a sophisticated computer program in a dedicated control room. All simulated scenarios lasted 10 min.

After each clinical simulated scenario was concluded, a debriefing was carried out to give students feedback about their performance. Debriefings in MAES© sessions were conducted according to the Gather, Analyse, and Summarise (GAS) method, a structured debriefing model developed by Phrampus and O’Donnell [ 29 ]. According to this method, the debriefing questions used were: What went well during your performance?; What did not go so well during your performance?; How can you do better next time? . Additionally, MAES© includes an expository phase in debriefings, where the students who performed the simulated scenario establish the contributions of scientific evidence about its resolution [ 17 ]. Each debriefing lasted 20 min in MAES© sessions. In contrast, debriefings in OSCE sessions lasted 10 min and they were carried out according to the Plus-Delta debriefing tool [ 30 ], a technique recommended when time is limited. Consequently, the debriefing questions were reduced to two questions: What went well during your performance?; What did not go so well during your performance? . Within these debriefings, professors communicated to students the total score obtained in the appropriate checklist. Each debriefing lasted 10 min in OSCE sessions. After all debriefings, students completed the questionnaires to evaluate their satisfaction with clinical simulation. In OSCE sessions, students had to report their satisfaction only with the scenario performed, which took part in a series of clinical stations.

In summary, Table  1 shows the required elements for formative and summative evaluation according to the Standards of Best Practice for participant evaluation recommended by the INACSL [ 18 ]. It should be noted that our MAES© and OSCE sessions accomplished these required elements.

Instruments

Clinical performance.

Professors assessed students’ clinical performance using checklists (‘Yes’/‘No’). In MAES© sessions, checklists were based on the 5 most important nursing activities included in the NIC [ 28 ] selected by nursing students. Table  2 shows the checklist of the most important NIC interventions and its related nursing activities selected by nursing students in the Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) simulated scenario. In contrast, checklists for evaluating OSCE sessions were based on nursing activities selected by consensus among professors, registered nurses, and clinical placement mentors. Nursing activities were divided into 5 categories: nursing assessment, clinical judgment/decision-making, clinical management/nursing care, communication/interpersonal relationships, and teamwork. Table  3 shows the checklist of nursing activities that nursing students had to perform in COPD simulated scenario. During the execution of all simulated scenarios, professors checked if the participants perform or not the nursing activities selected.

Clinical simulation satisfaction

To determine satisfaction with clinical simulation perceived by nursing students, the Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation [ 31 ] was used after each clinical simulation session. This questionnaire consists of 33 items with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. These items are divided into 8 scales: simulation utility, characteristics of cases and applications, communication, self-reflection on performance, increased self-confidence, relation between theory and practice, facilities and equipment and negative aspects of simulation. Cronbach’s α values for each scale ranged from .914 to .918 and total scale presents satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α value = .920). This questionnaire includes a final question about any opinion or suggestion that participating students wish to reflect after the simulation experience.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 software for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated to interpret the results obtained in demographic data, clinical performance, and satisfaction with clinical simulation. The dependent variables after the program in the two groups were analyzed using independent t-tests. The differences in the mean changes between the two groups were analyzed using an independent t-test. Cohen’s d was calculated to analyse the effect size for t-tests. Statistical tests were two-sided (α = 0.05), so the statistical significance was set at 0.05. Subsequently, all students’ opinions and comments were analysed using the ATLAS-ti version 8.0 software (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany). All the information contained in these qualitative data were stored, managed, classified and organized through this software. All the reiterated words, sentences or ideas were grouped into themes using a thematic analysis [ 32 ]. It should be noted that the students’ opinions and comments were preceded by the letter ‘S’ (student) and numerically labelled.

A total of 218 nursing students participated in the study (106 students were trained through MAES© sessions, whereas 112 students were assessed through OSCE sessions). The age of students ranged from 20 to 43 years (mean = 23.28; SD = 4.376). Most students were women ( n  = 184; 84.4%).

In formative evaluation, professors checked 93.2% of students selected adequately both NIC interventions and its related nursing activities for the resolution of the clinical simulated scenario. Subsequently, these professors checked 85.6% of students, who participated in each simulated scenario, performed the nursing activities previously selected by them. In summative evaluation, students obtained total scores ranged from 65 to 95 points (mean = 7.43; SD = .408).

Descriptive data for each scale of satisfaction with clinical simulation questionnaire, t-test, and effect sizes (d) of differences between two evaluation strategies are shown in Table  4 . Statistically significant differences were found between two evaluation strategies for all scales of the satisfaction with clinical simulation questionnaire. Students´ satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher for all scales of the questionnaire when they were assessed using formative evaluation, including the ‘negative aspects of simulation’ scale, where the students perceived fewer negative aspects. The effect size of these differences was large (including the total score of the questionnaire) (Cohen’s d values > .8), except for the ‘facilities and equipment’ scale, which effect size was medium (Cohen’s d value > .5) [ 33 ].

Table  5 shows specifically descriptive data, t-test, and effect sizes (d) of differences between both evaluation strategies for each item of the clinical simulation satisfaction questionnaire. Statistically significant differences were found between two evaluation strategies for all items of the questionnaire, except for items ‘I have improved communication with the family’, ‘I have improved communication with the patient’, and ‘I lost calm during any of the cases’. Students´ satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher in formative evaluation sessions for most items, except for item ‘simulation has made me more aware/worried about clinical practice’, where students informed being more aware and worried in summative evaluation sessions. Most effect sizes of these differences were small or medium (Cohen’s d values ranged from .238 to .709) [ 33 ]. The largest effect sizes of these differences were obtained for items ‘timing for each simulation case has been adequate’ (d = 1.107), ‘overall satisfaction of sessions’ (d = .953), and ‘simulation has made me more aware/worried about clinical practice’ (d = -.947). In contrast, the smallest effect sizes of these differences were obtained for items ‘simulation allows us to plan the patient care effectively’ (d = .238) and ‘the degree of cases difficulty was appropriate to my knowledge’ (d = .257).

In addition, participating students provided 74 opinions or suggestions expressed through short comments. Most students’ comments were related to 3 main themes after the thematic analysis: utility of clinical simulation methodology (S45: ‘it has been a useful activity and it helped us to recognize our mistakes and fixing knowledge’, S94: ‘to link theory to practice is essential’), to spend more time on this methodology (S113: ‘I would ask for more practices of this type‘, S178: ‘I feel very happy, but it should be done more frequently’), and its integration into other subjects (S21: ‘I consider this activity should be implemented in more subjects’, S64: ‘I wish there were more simulations in more subjects’). Finally, students´ comments about summative evaluation sessions included other 2 main themes related to: limited time of simulation experience (S134: ‘time is short’, S197: ‘there is no time to perform activities and assess properly’) and students´ anxiety (S123: ‘I was very nervous because people were evaluating me around’, S187: ‘I was more nervous than in a real situation’).

The most significant results obtained in our study are the nursing competency acquisition through clinical simulation by nursing students and the different level of their satisfaction with this methodology depending on the evaluation strategy employed.

Firstly, professors in this study verified most students acquired the nursing competencies to resolve each clinical situation. In our study, professors verified that most nursing students performed the majority of the nursing activities required for the resolution of each MAES© session and OSCE station. This result confirms the findings in other studies that have demonstrated nursing competency acquisition by nursing students through clinical simulation [ 34 , 35 ], and specifically nursing competencies related to critical patient management [ 9 , 36 ].

Secondly, students’ satisfaction assessed using both evaluation strategies could be considered high in most items of the questionnaire, regarding their mean scores (quite close to the maximum score in the response scale of the satisfaction questionnaire). The high level of satisfaction expressed by nursing students with clinical simulation obtained in this study is also congruent with empirical evidence, which confirms that this methodology is a useful tool for their learning process [ 6 , 31 , 37 – 40 ].

However, satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher when students were assessed using formative evaluation. The main students’ complaints with summative evaluation were related to reduced time for performing simulated scenarios and increased anxiety during their clinical performance. Reduced time is a frequent complaint of students in OSCE [ 23 , 41 ] and clinical simulation methodology [ 5 , 6 , 10 ]. Professors, registered nurses, and clinical placement mentors tested all simulated scenarios and their checklist in this study. They checked the time was enough for its resolution. Another criticism of summative evaluation is increased anxiety. However, several studies have demonstrated during clinical simulation students’ anxiety increase [ 42 , 43 ] and it is considered as the most disadvantage of clinical simulation [ 1 – 10 ]. In this sense, anxiety may influence negatively students’ learning process [ 42 , 43 ]. Although the current simulation methodology can mimic the real medical environment to a great degree, it might still be questionable whether students´ performance in the testing environment really represents their true ability. Test anxiety might increase in an unfamiliar testing environment; difficulty to handle unfamiliar technology (i.e., monitor, defibrillator, or other devices that may be different from the ones used in the examinee’s specific clinical environment) or even the need to ‘act as if’ in an artificial scenario (i.e., talking to a simulator, examining a ‘patient’ knowing he/she is an actor or a mannequin) might all compromise examinees’ performance. The best solution to reduce these complaints is the orientation of students to the simulated environment [ 10 , 21 – 23 ].

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the diversity in the satisfaction scores obtained in our study could be supported not by the choice of the assessment strategy, but precisely by the different purposes of formative and summative assessment. In this sense, there is a component of anxiety that is intrinsic in summative assessment, which must certify the acquisition of competencies [ 10 – 12 , 21 ]. In contrast, this aspect is not present in formative assessment, which is intended to help the student understand the distance to reach the expected level of competence, without penalty effects [ 10 – 12 ].

Both SBA strategies allow educators to evaluate students’ knowledge and apply it in a clinical setting. However, formative evaluation is identified as ‘assessment for learning’ and summative evaluation as ‘assessment of learning’ [ 44 ]. Using formative evaluation, educators’ responsibility is to ensure not only what students are learning in the classroom, but also the outcomes of their learning process [ 45 ]. In this sense, formative assessment by itself is not enough to determine educational outcomes [ 46 ]. Consequently, a checklist for evaluating students’ clinical performance was included in MAES© sessions. Alternatively, educators cannot make any corrections in students’ performance using summative evaluation [ 45 ]. Gavriel [ 44 ] suggests providing students feedback in this SBA strategy. Therefore, a debriefing phase was included after each OSCE session in our study. The significance of debriefing recognised by nursing students in our study is also congruent with the most evidence found  [ 13 , 15 , 16 , 47 ]. Nursing students appreciate feedback about their performance during simulation experience and, consequently, debriefing is considered as the most rewarding phase in clinical simulation by them  [ 5 , 6 , 48 ]. In addition, nursing students in our study expressed they could learn from their mistakes in debriefing. Learn from error is one of the most advantages of clinical simulation shown in several studies  [ 5 , 6 , 49 ] and mistakes should be considered learning opportunities rather than there being embarrassment or punitive consequences  [ 50 ].

Furthermore, nursing students who participated in our study considered the practical utility of clinical simulation as another advantage of this teaching methodology. This result is congruent with previous studies [ 5 , 6 ]. Specifically, our students indicated this methodology is useful to bridge the gap between theory and practice [ 51 , 52 ]. In this sense, clinical simulation has proven to reduce this gap and, consequently, it has demonstrated to shorten the gap between classrooms and clinical practices  [ 5 , 6 , 51 , 52 ]. Therefore, as this teaching methodology relates theory and practice, it helps nursing students to be prepared for their clinical practices and future careers. According to Benner’s model of skill acquisition in nursing [ 53 ], nursing students become competent nurses through this learning process, acquiring a degree of safety and clinical experience before their professional careers [ 54 ]. Although our research indicates clinical simulation is a useful methodology for the acquisition and learning process of competencies mainly related to adequate management and nursing care of critically ill patients, this acquisition and learning process could be extended to most nursing care settings and its required nursing competencies.

Limitations and future research

Although checklists employed in OSCE have been criticized for their subjective construction [ 10 , 21 – 23 ], they were constructed with the expert consensus of nursing professors, registered nurses and clinical placement mentors. Alternatively, the self-reported questionnaire used to evaluate clinical simulation satisfaction has strong validity. All simulated scenarios were similar in MAES© and OSCE sessions (same clinical situations, patients, actors and number of participating students), although the debriefing method employed after them was different. This difference was due to reduced time in OSCE sessions. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the two groups of students involved in our study were from different course years and they were exposed to different strategies of SBA. In this sense, future studies should compare nursing students’ satisfaction with both strategies of SBA in the same group of students and using the same debriefing method. Finally, future research should combine formative and summative evaluation for assessing the clinical performance of undergraduate nursing students in simulated scenarios.

It is needed to provide students feedback about their clinical performance when they are assessed using summative evaluation. Furthermore, it is needed to evaluate whether they achieve learning outcomes when they are assessed using formative evaluation. Consequently, it should be recommended to combine both evaluation strategies in SBA. Although students expressed high satisfaction with clinical simulation methodology, they perceived a reduced time and increased anxiety when they are assessed by summative evaluation. The best solution is the orientation of students to the simulated environment.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Martins J, Baptista R, Coutinho V, Fernandes M, Fernandes A. Simulation in nursing and midwifery education. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Cant RP, Cooper SJ. Simulation-based learning in nurse education: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:3–15.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chernikova O, Heitzmann N, Stadler M, Holzberger D, Seidel T, Fischer F. Simulation-based learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2020;90:499–541.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kim J, Park JH, Shin S. Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:152.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ricketts B. The role of simulation for learning within pre-registration nursing education—a literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31:650–4.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Shin S, Park JH, Kim JH. Effectiveness of patient simulation in nursing education: meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35:176–82.

Bagnasco A, Pagnucci N, Tolotti A, Rosa F, Torre G, Sasso L. The role of simulation in developing communication and gestural skills in medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:106.

Oh PJ, Jeon KD, Koh MS. The effects of simulation-based learning using standardized patients in nursing students: a meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35:e6–e15.

Stayt LC, Merriman C, Ricketts B, Morton S, Simpson T. Recognizing and managing a deteriorating patient: a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of clinical simulation in improving clinical performance in undergraduate nursing students. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71:2563–74.

Ryall T, Judd BK, Gordon CJ. Simulation-based assessments in health professional education: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:69–82.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Billings DM, Halstead JA. Teaching in nursing: a guide for faculty. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2012.

Nichols PD, Meyers JL, Burling KS. A framework for evaluating and planning assessments intended to improve student achievement. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2009;28:14–23.

Cant RP, Cooper SJ. The benefits of debriefing as formative feedback in nurse education. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2011;29:37–47.

INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of Best Practice: Simulation SM Simulation Glossary. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:S39–47.

Dufrene C, Young A. Successful debriefing-best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: a literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34:372–6.

Levett-Jones T, Lapkin S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation debriefing in health professional education. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34:e58–63.

Díaz JL, Leal C, García JA, Hernández E, Adánez MG, Sáez A. Self-learning methodology in simulated environments (MAES©): elements and characteristics. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:268–74.

INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of Best Practice: Simulation SM : Participant Evaluation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:S26–9.

Díaz Agea JL, Megías Nicolás A, García Méndez JA, Adánez Martínez MG, Leal CC. Improving simulation performance through self-learning methodology in simulated environments (MAES©). Nurse Educ Today. 2019;76:62–7.

Díaz Agea JL, Ramos-Morcillo AJ, Amo Setien FJ, Ruzafa-Martínez M, Hueso-Montoro C, Leal-Costa C. Perceptions about the self-learning methodology in simulated environments in nursing students: a mixed study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:4646.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oermann MH, Kardong-Edgren S, Rizzolo MA. Summative simulated-based assessment in nursing programs. J Nurs Educ. 2016;55:323–8.

Harden RM, Gleeson FA. Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Med Educ. 1979;13:41–54.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mitchell ML, Henderson A, Groves M, Dalton M, Nulty D. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): optimising its value in the undergraduate nursing curriculum. Nurse Educ Today. 2009;29:394–404.

INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of Best Practice: Simulation SM Simulation Design. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:S5–S12.

INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of Best Practice: Simulation SM Facilitation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:S16–20.

INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of Best Practice: Simulation SM Debriefing. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:S21–5.

Rudolph JW, Raemer D, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Healthc. 2014;9:339–49.

Butcher HK, Bulechek GM, Dochterman JMM, Wagner C. Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC). 7th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018.

Phrampus PE, O’Donnell JM. Debriefing using a structured and supported approach. In: AI AIL, De Maria JS, Schwartz AD, Sim AJ, editors. The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 73–84.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Decker S, Fey M, Sideras S, Caballero S, Rockstraw L, Boese T, et al. Standards of best practice: simulation standard VI: the debriefing process. Clin Simul Nurs. 2013;9:S26–9.

Alconero-Camarero AR, Gualdrón-Romero A, Sarabia-Cobo CM, Martínez-Arce A. Clinical simulation as a learning tool in undergraduate nursing: validation of a questionnaire. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;39:128–34.

Mayan M. Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.; 2009.

Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 7th ed. London: Routledge; 2011.

Lapkin S, Levett-Jones T, Bellchambers H, Fernandez R. Effectiveness of patient simulation manikins in teaching clinical reasoning skills to undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2010;6:207–22.

McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. Revisiting “a critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009”. Med Educ. 2016;50:986–91.

Abelsson A, Bisholt B. Nurse students learning acute care by simulation - focus on observation and debriefing. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;24:6–13.

Bland AJ, Topping A, Wood BA. Concept analysis of simulation as a learning strategy in the education of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31:664–70.

Franklin AE, Burns P, Lee CS. Psychometric testing on the NLN student satisfaction and self-confidence in learning, design scale simulation, and educational practices questionnaire using a sample of pre-licensure novice nurses. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34:1298–304.

Levett-Jones T, McCoy M, Lapkin S, Noble D, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, et al. The development and psychometric testing of the satisfaction with simulation experience scale. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31:705–10.

Zapko KA, Ferranto MLG, Blasiman R, Shelestak D. Evaluating best educational practices, student satisfaction, and self-confidence in simulation: a descriptive study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;60:28–34.

Kelly MA, Mitchell ML, Henderson A, Jeffrey CA, Groves M, Nulty DD, et al. OSCE best practice guidelines-applicability for nursing simulations. Adv Simul. 2016;1:10.

Cantrell ML, Meyer SL, Mosack V. Effects of simulation on nursing student stress: an integrative review. J Nurs Educ. 2017;56:139–44.

Nielsen B, Harder N. Causes of student anxiety during simulation: what the literature says. Clin Simul Nurs. 2013;9:e507–12.

Gavriel J. Assessment for learning: a wider (classroom-researched) perspective is important for formative assessment and self-directed learning in general practice. Educ Prim Care. 2013;24:93–6.

Taras M. Summative and formative assessment. Act Learn High Educ. 2008;9:172–82.

Wunder LL, Glymph DC, Newman J, Gonzalez V, Gonzalez JE, Groom JA. Objective structured clinical examination as an educational initiative for summative simulation competency evaluation of first-year student registered nurse anesthetists’ clinical skills. AANA J. 2014;82:419–25.

Neill MA, Wotton K. High-fidelity simulation debriefing in nursing education: a literature review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7:e161–8.

Norman J. Systematic review of the literature on simulation in nursing education. ABNF J. 2012;23:24–8.

King A, Holder MGJr, Ahmed RA. Error as allies: error management training in health professions education. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:516–9.

Higgins M, Ishimaru A, Holcombe R, Fowler A. Examining organizational learning in schools: the role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. J Educ Change. 2012;13:67–94.

Hope A, Garside J, Prescott S. Rethinking theory and practice: Pre-registration student nurses experiences of simulation teaching and learning in the acquisition of clinical skills in preparation for practice. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31:711–7.

Lisko SA, O’Dell V. Integration of theory and practice: experiential learning theory and nursing education. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2010;31:106–8.

Benner P. From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley Publishing; 1984.

Book   Google Scholar  

Nickless LJ. The use of simulation to address the acute care skills deficit in pre-registration nursing students: a clinical skill perspective. Nurse Educ Pract. 2011;11:199–205.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the collaboration of nursing students who participated in the study.

STROBE statement

All methods were carried out in accordance with the 22-item checklist of the consolidated criteria for reporting cross-sectional studies (STROBE).

The authors have no sources of funding to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fundación San Juan de Dios, Centro de Ciencias de la Salud San Rafael, Universidad de Nebrija, Paseo de La Habana, 70, 28036, Madrid, Spain

Oscar Arrogante, Gracia María González-Romero, Eva María López-Torre, Laura Carrión-García & Alberto Polo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OA: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision; GMGR: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Writing - Review & Editing; EMLT: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing; LCG: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Writing - Review & Editing; AP: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oscar Arrogante .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The research committee of the Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud San Rafael-Nebrija approved the study (P_2018_012). According to the ethical standards, all participants received written informed consent and written information about the study and its goals. Additionally, written informed consent for audio-video recording was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Arrogante, O., González-Romero, G.M., López-Torre, E.M. et al. Comparing formative and summative simulation-based assessment in undergraduate nursing students: nursing competency acquisition and clinical simulation satisfaction. BMC Nurs 20 , 92 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00614-2

Download citation

Received : 09 February 2021

Accepted : 17 May 2021

Published : 08 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00614-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

formative assessment journal articles

IMAGES

  1. Pin by Tamara Bass on Formative Assessment

    formative assessment journal articles

  2. Pin on Formative Assessment Tools for Teachers

    formative assessment journal articles

  3. Mr Lewis on Twitter

    formative assessment journal articles

  4. The Effect of formative assessment on students’ grades in learning English

    formative assessment journal articles

  5. Buy Journal of Career Assessment Subscription

    formative assessment journal articles

  6. Math Journals as Formative Assessment

    formative assessment journal articles

VIDEO

  1. ADVANCE Essay Writing Formula

  2. Journal Article Review

  3. fa1 Maths class 9 exam

  4. Writing Acceptable Unit Topic Learning Outcomes

  5. GENN142 Report Writing 1 Week 1 Lecture

  6. Report Writing Level 1

COMMENTS

  1. Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher ...

    Two approaches to formative assessment are Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) and Assessment for Learning (AfL) ( Van der Kleij et al., 2015 ). These approaches can complement each other, and elements of each approach are often used by teachers in their classroom practice ( Kippers, Wolterinck, Schildkamp, Poortman, & Visscher, 2018 ).

  2. Full article: Formative assessment and feedback: a review

    Formative assessment is considered to be one of the most important mechanisms for improving student learning. Self and peer-assessment are particularly effective in formative learning as they require students to engage more fully with the assessment process.

  3. Using formative evaluation methods to improve clinical ...

    In this article, we describe different types of formative evaluations (developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive), and then present a formative evaluation case study from a real-world implementation study within several academic pain clinics, guided by the Theory of Diffusion of Innovation.

  4. The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and ...

    This article reports on the implementation of formative e-assessments in courses taken by first-year students. The central aim is to measure the effectiveness of the formative e-assessments with reference to the student voice and staff reflections.

  5. New Trends in Formative-Summative Evaluations for Adult ...

    The effective formative assessment is designed to attain the desired learning objectives and focuses on daily needs and practices. It is aimed to monitor student achievement and progress in achieving the desired goals, thus must be precise, clear, quantifiable, and based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

  6. Comparing formative and summative simulation-based assessment ...

    In formative evaluation, professors checked 93.2% of students selected adequately both NIC interventions and its related nursing activities for the resolution of the clinical simulated scenario.

  7. A Study of the Implementation of Formative Assessment in ...

    Thus, the purpose of this study was to gain a broader understanding of how teachers conceptualize and enact formative assessment strategies in their classrooms with the aim of providing guidance to teacher educators, professional development providers, and policy makers about gaps in teachers’ understanding of and use of formative assessment.

  8. Ten maxims of formative assessment | Advances in Physiology ...

    The goal of this article is to outline ways in which formative assessment, as a strategy, can be better understood and approached. The key features that are emblematic of formative assessment can be captured as 10 F’s and are presented in the order of importance: 1. Faceless. 2.

  9. Motivating student learning using a formative assessment ...

    Ideally and unlike summative assessments, formative assessment should occur in a non-threatening environment, be offered at a time that is applicable to the students' learning journey and be one where the student takes an active part in the process (Rolfe & McPherson, 1995; Harlen & James, 1997; Krasne et al. 2006). The progress of students ...