The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies
It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Mariani, Bette [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
4 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators - McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER, 2022, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:22 ; year:2018 ; pages:1-4 ; extent:4 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV043893538 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV043893538 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626004316.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 181113s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBV00000000000345.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV043893538 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 44.40 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Mariani, Bette |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 4 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. | ||
| 520 | |a It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a simulation research rubric |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a simulation-based research reports |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a research reporting |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fey, Mary K. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gloe, Donna |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |a McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER |t Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators |d 2022 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV008894604 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2018 |g pages:1-4 |g extent:4 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.40 |j Pharmazie |j Pharmazeutika |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 22 |j 2018 |h 1-4 |g 4 | ||
| author_variant |
b m bm |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
marianibettefeymarykgloedonna:2018----:hsmltorsacrbiaiosuyvlaiguls |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
44.40 |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 doi GBV00000000000345.pica (DE-627)ELV043893538 (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 44.40 bkl Mariani, Bette verfasserin aut The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies 2018transfer abstract 4 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting Elsevier Fey, Mary K. oth Gloe, Donna oth Enthalten in Elsevier McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008894604 volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.40 Pharmazie Pharmazeutika VZ AR 22 2018 1-4 4 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 doi GBV00000000000345.pica (DE-627)ELV043893538 (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 44.40 bkl Mariani, Bette verfasserin aut The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies 2018transfer abstract 4 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting Elsevier Fey, Mary K. oth Gloe, Donna oth Enthalten in Elsevier McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008894604 volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.40 Pharmazie Pharmazeutika VZ AR 22 2018 1-4 4 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 doi GBV00000000000345.pica (DE-627)ELV043893538 (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 44.40 bkl Mariani, Bette verfasserin aut The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies 2018transfer abstract 4 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting Elsevier Fey, Mary K. oth Gloe, Donna oth Enthalten in Elsevier McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008894604 volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.40 Pharmazie Pharmazeutika VZ AR 22 2018 1-4 4 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 doi GBV00000000000345.pica (DE-627)ELV043893538 (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 44.40 bkl Mariani, Bette verfasserin aut The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies 2018transfer abstract 4 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting Elsevier Fey, Mary K. oth Gloe, Donna oth Enthalten in Elsevier McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008894604 volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.40 Pharmazie Pharmazeutika VZ AR 22 2018 1-4 4 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 doi GBV00000000000345.pica (DE-627)ELV043893538 (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 44.40 bkl Mariani, Bette verfasserin aut The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies 2018transfer abstract 4 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting Elsevier Fey, Mary K. oth Gloe, Donna oth Enthalten in Elsevier McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008894604 volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.40 Pharmazie Pharmazeutika VZ AR 22 2018 1-4 4 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:22 year:2018 pages:1-4 extent:4 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Pharmazie Pharmazeutika |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
simulation research rubric simulation-based research reports research reporting |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Mariani, Bette @@aut@@ Fey, Mary K. @@oth@@ Gloe, Donna @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV008894604 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
ELV043893538 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV043893538</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626004316.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">181113s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000345.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV043893538</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mariani, Bette</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">simulation research rubric</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">simulation-based research reports</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">research reporting</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fey, Mary K.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gloe, Donna</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators</subfield><subfield code="d">2022</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV008894604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmazie</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmazeutika</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="h">1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">4</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Mariani, Bette |
| spellingShingle |
Mariani, Bette ddc 610 bkl 44.40 Elsevier simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies |
| authorStr |
Mariani, Bette |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV008894604 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
610 VZ 44.40 bkl The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 610 bkl 44.40 Elsevier simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 bkl 44.40 Elsevier simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 bkl 44.40 Elsevier simulation research rubric Elsevier simulation-based research reports Elsevier research reporting |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
m k f mk mkf d g dg |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV008894604 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV008894604 |
| title |
The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV043893538 (ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X |
| title_full |
The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies |
| author_sort |
Mariani, Bette |
| journal |
Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators |
| journalStr |
Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
1 |
| author_browse |
Mariani, Bette |
| container_volume |
22 |
| physical |
4 |
| class |
610 VZ 44.40 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Mariani, Bette |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| title_sort |
simulation research rubric: a pilot study evaluating published simulation studies |
| title_auth |
The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies |
| abstract |
It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. |
| abstractGer |
It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA |
| title_short |
The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Fey, Mary K. Gloe, Donna |
| author2Str |
Fey, Mary K. Gloe, Donna |
| ppnlink |
ELV008894604 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T20:02:18.544Z |
| _version_ |
1803861243772010496 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV043893538</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626004316.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">181113s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000345.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV043893538</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S1876-1399(18)30063-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mariani, Bette</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The Simulation Research Rubric: A Pilot Study Evaluating Published Simulation Studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">It is important to assess the effectiveness of simulation through research. This pilot project used the Simulation Research Rubric developed in 2014 to appraise the quality of published simulation research. Sixty-nine simulation-based research articles published in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing journal in 2013 to 2014 were scored by an eight-member team using the Simulation Research Rubric. Of the 69 articles reviewed, 15 (21.8%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 47 (68.1%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 7 (10.1%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). In conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Recommendations were made to improve reporting, which may strengthen the evidence guiding simulation in education and practice. In addition, results may be used to guide the design of published research in the future.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">simulation research rubric</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">simulation-based research reports</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">research reporting</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fey, Mary K.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gloe, Donna</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">McGrath, Lauren ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Using plain language to communicate with clinical trials participants: Comparison of readability calculators</subfield><subfield code="d">2022</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV008894604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.06.003</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmazie</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmazeutika</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="h">1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">4</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3985205 |