Interactive simulation is one of the most prominent methods used to train and measure learning outcomes across multiple disciplines. Despite the ubiquity of simulation-based training in a variety of domains including nursing, serious games, military operations, etc., there is a paucity of research on how simulation experience is defined and how individual differences impact user experience. Towards this end, this paper provides a critical review of the existing literature. We describe how we can leverage existing findings and emergent themes to better understand and define simulation experience, and we outline areas for further investigation of the role of individual differences in user experience to enhance not only training outcomes, but also perception of simulation.
References
1.
AndreA. D.WickensC. D. (1995). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in design, 3(4), 10-14.
2.
Bargas-AvilaJ. A.HornbækK. (2011, May). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2689-2698). ACM.
3.
BrydgesR.CarnahanH.RoseD.RoseL.DubrowskiA. (2010). Coordinating progressive levels of simulation fidelity to maximize educational benefit. Academic Medicine, 85(5), 806-812.
4.
BurnsH. K.O'DonnellJ.ArtmanJ. (2010). High-fidelity simulation in teaching problem solving to 1st-year nursing students: a novel use of the nursing process. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 6(3), e87-e95.
5.
CantR. P.CooperS. J. (2010). Simulation based learning in nurse education: systematic review. Journal of advanced nursing, 66(1), 3-15.
6.
ChenC.CzerwinskiM.MacredieR. (2000). Individual differences in virtual environments—introduction and overview. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 51(6), 499-507.
7.
DahlstromN.DekkerS.Van WinsenR.NyceJ. (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(4), 305-314.
8.
DaviesD. R.MatthewsG.StammersR. B.WestermanS. J. (2013). Human performance: Cognition, stress and individual differences. Psychology Press.
9.
DieckmannP.ManserT.WehnerT.RallM. (2007). Reality and fiction cues in medical patient simulation: an interview study with anesthesiologists. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(2), 148-168.
10.
EysenckH. J.EysenckM. W. (1987). Personality and individual differences. New York, NY: Plenum.
11.
FrøkjærE.HertzumM.HornbækK. (2000, April). Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 345-352). ACM.
12.
HamstraS. J.BrydgesR.HatalaR.ZendejasB.CookD. A. (2014). Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Academic Medicine, 89(3), 387-392.
13.
HilgardJ.EngelhardtC. R.BartholowB. D. (2013). Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES). Frontiers in psychology, 4, 608.
14.
HaysR. T.SingerM. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity as an organizing concept. In Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design (pp. 47-75). Springer, New York, NY.
15.
HaysR. T.SingerM. J. (2012). Simulation fidelity in training system design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. Springer Science & Business Media.
16.
HornbækK. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International journal of human-computer studies, 64(2), 79-102.
17.
HotchkissM. A.BiddleC.FallacaroM. (2002). Assessing the authenticity of the human simulation experience in anesthesiology. AANA journal, 70(6), 470-473.
18.
JensonJ.De CastellS. (2010). Gender, simulation, and gaming: Research review and redirections. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 51-71.
19.
KapaloK. A.DewarA. R.RuppM. A.SzalmaJ. L. (2015, September). Individual Differences in Video Gaming: Defining Hardcore Video Gamers. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 878-881). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
20.
KincaidJ. P.HamiltonR.TarrR. W.SanganiH. (2003). Simulation in education and training. In Applied system simulation (pp. 437-456). Springer, Boston, MA.
21.
LasaterK. (2007). High-fidelity simulation and the development of clinical judgment: Students' experiences. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(6), 269.
22.
Levett-JonesT.McCoyM.LapkinS.NobleD.HoffmanK.DempseyJ.ArthurC.RocheJ. (2011). The development and psychometric testing of the Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale. Nurse Education Today, 31(7), 705-710.
23.
MandrykR. L.InkpenK. M.CalvertT. W. (2006). Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies. Behaviour & information technology, 25(2), 141-158.
24.
MarakasG. M.JohnsonR. D.ClayP. F. (2007). The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability and stability over time. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(1), 15.
25.
MatthewsG. (2000). Human performance: Cognition, stress, and individual differences. Psychology Press.
26.
McCaugheyC. S.TraynorM. K. (2010). The role of simulation in nurse education. Nurse education today, 30(8), 827-832.
27.
MoroneyW. F.LilienthalM. G. (2008). Human factors in simulation and training. Human Factors in Simulation and Training. CRC Press, 3-38.
28.
NielsenJ.LevyJ. (1994). Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Communications of the ACM, 37(4), 66-75.
29.
NojavanasghariB.HughesC. E.MorencyL. P. (2017, May). Exceptionally social: Design of an avatar-mediated interactive system for promoting social skills in children with autism. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1932-1939). ACM.
30.
NormanG.DoreK.GriersonL. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical education, 46(7), 636-647.
31.
RaybournE. M. (2006). Applying simulation experience design methods to creating serious game-based adaptive training systems. Interacting with computers, 19(2), 206-214.
32.
RosenK. R. (2008). The history of medical simulation. Journal of critical care, 23(2), 157-166.
33.
RosenbergM.PhillipsD. (2015). All combat roles now open to women, Defense Secretary says. New York Times, 3.
34.
SalasE.RosenM. A.HeldJ. D.WeissmullerJ. J. (2009). Performance measurement in simulation-based training: A review and best practices. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 328-376.
35.
SitzmannT. (2011). A meta analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer based simulation games. Personnel psychology, 64(2), 489-528.
36.
VasalouA.IngramG.KhaledR. (2012, June). User-centered research in the early stages of a learning game. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 116-125). ACM.
