The Paradox of Preference vs. Performance: Towards a Unified View of Simulation Experience

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.

[1]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Measuring usability: preference vs. performance , 1994, CACM.

[2]  J. Peter Kincaid,et al.  Simulation in education and training , 2009, Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

[3]  Jennifer Jenson,et al.  Gender, Simulation, and Gaming: Research Review and Redirections , 2010 .

[4]  H. Burns,et al.  High-fidelity Simulation in Teaching Problem Solving to 1st-Year Nursing Students , 2010 .

[5]  A. Anastasi.  Individual differences. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  Kathleen R Rosen,et al.  The history of medical simulation. , 2008, Journal of critical care.

[7]  Asimina Vasalou,et al.  User-centered research in the early stages of a learning game , 2012, DIS '12.

[8]  N. Dahlstroma,et al.  Fidelity and validity of simulator training , 2009 .

[9]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Comment on Benbasat and Barki's "Quo Vadis TAM" article , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[11]  Joseph Hilgard,et al.  Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathology in video games: the gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES) , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[12]  Charles E. Hughes,et al.  Exceptionally Social: Design of an Avatar-Mediated Interactive System for Promoting Social Skills in Children with Autism , 2017, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[13]  Traci Sitzmann.  A META-ANALYTIC EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER-BASED SIMULATION GAMES , 2011 .

[14]  R. Cant,et al.  Simulation-based learning in nurse education: systematic review. , 2010, Journal of advanced nursing.

[15]  H. Carnahan,et al.  Coordinating Progressive Levels of Simulation Fidelity to Maximize Educational Benefit , 2010, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[16]  G. Matthews.  Human Performance: Cognition, Stress and Individual Differences , 2000 .

[17]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  Human Factors in Simulation and Training , 2008 .

[18]  Kathie Lasater,et al.  High-fidelity simulation and the development of clinical judgment: students' experiences. , 2007, The Journal of nursing education.

[19]  Chuck Biddle,et al.  Assessing the authenticity of the human simulation experience in anesthesiology. , 2002, AANA journal.

[20]  Paul Levine,et al.  Reality and Fiction , 1966 .

[21]  H. Burns,et al.  High-fidelity Simulation in Teaching Problem Solving to 1 st-Year Nursing Students A Novel Use of the Nursing Process , 2010 .

[22]  Peter Dieckmann,et al.  Reality and Fiction Cues in Medical Patient Simulation: An Interview Study with Anesthesiologists , 2007 .

[23]  C. McCaughey,et al.  The role of simulation in nurse education. , 2010, Nurse education today.

[24]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? , 2000, CHI.

[25]  S. Hamstra,et al.  Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. , 2014, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[26]  Richard D. Johnson,et al.  The Evolving Nature of the Computer Self-Efficacy Construct: An Empirical Investigation of Measurement Construction, Validity, Reliability and Stability Over Time , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience , 2011, CHI.

[28]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  When Users Want What's not Best for Them , 1995 .

[29]  Robert T. Hays,et al.  Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design: Bridging the Gap Between Reality and Training , 1988 .

[30]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[31]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Individual differences in virtual environments - Introduction and overview , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[32]  Geoff Norman,et al.  The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning , 2012, Medical education.

[33]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Performance Measurement in Simulation-Based Training , 2009 .

[34]  Elaine M. Raybourn,et al.  Applying simulation experience design methods to creating serious game-based adaptive training systems , 2007, Interact. Comput..

[35]  Robert T. Hays,et al.  Simulation Fidelity as an Organizing Concept , 1989 .

[36]  William Moroney,et al.  Human Factors in Simulation and Training: An Overview , 2008 .

[37]  Jennifer Dempsey,et al.  The development and psychometric testing of the Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale. , 2011, Nurse education today.