STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Statistical Analysis
The 20 items of both areas (experience and importance) included in the Debriefing Experience Scale (Reed, 2012) were analyzed statistically using IBM’s SPSS version 18.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science, SPSS, Chicago, IL). Data were analyzed using
independent samples t-test with the statistical significance level set at p ˂ .05. This statistical test was chosen because this study is testing the differences between two groups, the control group (V debriefing) and the comparative group (VA+V debriefing). This statistical test is an
appropriate choice for analysis of the data.
Results
Almost all of the undergraduate nursing students in this study (63) were experiencing simulation exercise and debriefing for the first time (98.4 %), and only one student had previous experience of debriefing (1.6 %). The average age of the participants was 22.81, the age for both groups are depicted in figure 4.1 and 4.2. Moreover, 60 students were female (93.7 %), and 4 students were male (6.3 %). The ethnicity of the participants was: White (Caucasian) 52 (82.5%), African-American 3 (4.7 %), Hispanic 4 (6.3 %), and other 5 (7.8 %), as depicted in figure 4.3, and 4.4 for both groups. In this study, the results showed only 7 (10.9 %) students who are health professional student, which are registered nurse and certified nursing assistance (RN/CNA). 63 participants are taking NUR 354 for the first time. The average overall GPA for all the
participants was 3.06 and the nursing GPA was 3.29. Further information about demographic and academic characteristics of both groups can be found in Table 4.1.
Based on the t-test of independent samples 18 of 20 items on the experience scale were non-significant. There were only two significant items, which are Item 2 (VA+ V debriefing M =
4.86, SD= .34, ± = .06; V debriefing M = 4.55, SD= .50, ± = .07; p = .007), and question 12 (VA+V debriefing M = 4.56, SD = .62, ± =.11; V debriefing M = 4.20, SD = .64, ± .11; p = .027). Both items showed significantly higher scores in the group who had video-assisted verbal
debriefing. The results can be found in the Table 4.2.
Within the importance subscale, 10 of 20 items were found to be non-significant while 8 were significant and 2 were approaching significance level (items 3 and 5). Statistical data for the significant items on the importance subscale can be found in the Table 4.3.
Table 4.1
Demographic and Academic Characteristics of Both Groups of the Sample (N = 64) Characteristics
Debriefing with Video
n = 30 V Debriefing Alone n = 34 Total N = 64 n (%) n (%) n (%) Gender Male 3 (10) 1 (2.9) 4 (6.2) Female 27 (90) 33 (97.1) 60(93.8) Age Mean 22.80 21.65 22.81 Standard Deviation 4.90 4.46 4.67 Ethnicity White/Caucasian 23 (76.6) 29 (85.3) 52(81.2) African-American 3 (10.0) 0 (0) 3 (4.6) Hispanic 2 (6.6) 2 (5.9) 4 (6.2) Other 2 (6.6) 3 (8.8) 5 (7.8)
Health Professional Student (RN/CNA) Yes 1 (3.3) 6 (17.6) 7 (10.9) No 29 (96.7) 28 (82.4) 57(89.1) Previous debriefings Yes 1 (3.3) 0 (0) 1 (1.6) No 29 (96.7) 34 (100) 63(98.4) NUR 354 1st Time Yes 29 (96.7) 34 (100) 34(100) No 1 (3.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) Nursing GPA Mean 3.09 3.01 3.06 Standard Deviation .34 .40 .37 Overall GPA Mean 3.28 3.29 3.29 Standard Deviation .29 .37 .33
Figure 4.1 Age of Video-Assisted Verbal Debriefing Group
Figure 4.2 Age of Verbal Debriefing Group
Age (Video-Assisted Verbal Debriefing Group)
18-21 22-25 26-29 30+
Age (Verbal Debriefing Group)
18-21 22-25 26-29 30+
Figure 4.3 Ethnicity of Video-Assisted Verbal Debriefing Group
Figure 4.4 Ethnicity of Verbal Debriefing Group
Ethnicity (Video-Assisted Verbal Debriefing Group )
White/Cocasian African-American Hispanic
Other
Ethnicity (Verbal Debriefing Group )
White/Cocasian African-American Hispanic
Table 4.2
The t-Test Scores, Debriefing with Video (n = 30) Versus Verbal Debriefing (n = 34); Experience Subscale
Debriefing with Video
Debriefing Alone
Items Mean SD Mean SD p
Analyzing Thoughts and Feelings
1. Debriefing helped me to analyze my thoughts 4.83 .37 4.70 .46 .236
2. The facilitator reinforced aspects of the health care team’s behavior
4.86 .34 4.55 .50 .007*
3. The debriefing environment was physically comfortable 4. 50 .73 4. 35 .59 .379 4. Unsettled feelings from the simulation were resolved by
Debriefing
4.43 .77 4.14 .74 .137
Learning and Making Connections
5. Debriefing helped me to make connections in my Learning
4. 66 .47 4. 61 .49 .689
6. Debriefing was helpful in processing the simulation Experience
4. 73 .44 4. 67 .47 .626
7. Debriefing provided me with a learning opportunity 4. 89 .43 4. 76 .43 .305 8. Debriefing helped me to find meaning in the simulation 4. 73 .44 4. 58 .78 .375 9. My questions from the simulation were answered by
Debriefing
4. 53 .73 4. 50 .56 .838
10. I became more aware of myself during the debriefing Session
4. 53 .57 4. 32 .58 .154
11. Debriefing helped me to clarify problems 4. 50 .62 4. 55 .50 .680
12. Debriefing helped me to make connections between theory and real-life situations
4. 56 .62 4. 20 .46 .027*
Facilitator Skill in Conducting the Debriefing
13. The facilitator allowed me enough time to verbalize my feelings before commenting
4. 46 .62 4. 44 .70 .088
14. The debriefing session facilitator talked the right amount during debriefing
4. 46 .62 4. 38 .49 .551
15. Debriefing provided a means for me to reflect on my actions during the simulation
4. 73 .44 4. 64 .48 .465
16. I had enough time to debrief thoroughly 4. 36 .66 4. 20 .64 .330
17. The debriefing session facilitator was an expert in the content area
4. 83 .37 4. 70 .46 .236
Appropriate Facilitator Guidance
18. The facilitator taught the right amount during the debriefing session
4. 56 .50 4. 38 .55 .170
19. The facilitator provided constructive evaluation of the simulation during debriefing
4. 70 .46 4. 55 .61 .309
20. The facilitator provided adequate guidance during the Debriefing
4. 70 .53 4. 52 .56 .220
Table 4.3
The t-Test Scores, Debriefing with Video (n = 30) Versus Verbal Debriefing (n =34); Importance Subscale
Debriefing with Video
Debriefing Alone
Items Mean SD Mean SD p
Analyzing Thoughts and Feelings
1. Debriefing helped me to analyze my thoughts 4.80 .40 4.73 .44 .549
2. The facilitator reinforced aspects of the health care team’s behavior
4.76 .50 4.55 .50 .105
3. The debriefing environment was physically comfortable 4. 46 .81 4. 11 .46 .061 4. Unsettled feelings from the simulation were resolved by
Debriefing
4.86 .43 4.55 .66 .034*
Learning and Making Connections
5. Debriefing helped me to make connections in my Learning
4. 70 .46 4. 47 .50 .65
6. Debriefing was helpful in processing the simulation Experience
4. 76 .43 4. 61 .49 .205
7. Debriefing provided me with a learning opportunity 4. 80 .40 4. 55 .50 .041* 8. Debriefing helped me to find meaning in the simulation 4. 70 .46 4. 41 .55 .030* 9. My questions from the simulation were answered by
Debriefing
4. 83 .37 4. 55 .50 .018*
10. I became more aware of myself during the debriefing Session
4. 70 .46 4. 50 .50 .107
11. Debriefing helped me to clarify problems 4. 80 .40 4. 55 .50 .041*
12. Debriefing helped me to make connections between theory and real-life situations
4. 73 .44 4. 41 .55 .014*
Facilitator Skill in Conducting the Debriefing
13. The facilitator allowed me enough time to verbalize my feelings before commenting
4. 60 .56 4. 35 .59 .095
14. The debriefing session facilitator talked the right amount during debriefing
4. 63 .55 4. 32 .55 .006*
15. Debriefing provided a means for me to reflect on my actions during the simulation
4. 70 .46 4. 55 .50 .251
16. I had enough time to debrief thoroughly 4. 66 .54 4. 47 .56 .164
17. The debriefing session facilitator was an expert in the content area
4. 76 .43 4. 61 .49 .205
Appropriate Facilitator Guidance
18. The facilitator taught the right amount during the debriefing session
4. 76 .43 4. 50 .50 .028*
19. The facilitator provided constructive evaluation of the simulation during debriefing
4. 73 .44 4. 70 .46 .811
20. The facilitator provided adequate guidance during the Debriefing
4. 76 .43 4. 67 .47 .431
CHAPTER 5