Simulation Methodologies

  • Matthew David Charnetski
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)


Simulation methodologies comprise a myriad of different educational, technological, and delivery tools and techniques. An understanding of these tools, as well as their application, advantages, and disadvantages, is essential to the development and delivery of any simulated education curriculum. Building from the large and sometimes obvious methodologies such as manikins and standardized patients, we will explore through the minutiae of audio and visual elements and into moulage and scene setting. Each of these methodologies can exist discretely or build upon one another or provide ample learning opportunities for any level of learner. This chapter will build a foundational understanding of currently available simulation tools and techniques and how they can be incorporated individually, or mixed together, into a scenario which meets a larger learning objective or curriculum need.


Simulation methodologies Manikin Standardized patient Task trainer High-fidelity Low-fidelity High-technology Low-technology Moulage High-feedback Virtual reality Augmented reality 


  1. 1.
    Durant W. Story of philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1961.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, et al. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):e867–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    INACSL-Standards-Committee. INACSL standards of best practice: simulation operations. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13(12):681–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lopreiato JO. Healthcare Simulation Dictionary. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rehmann AJ, Mitman RD, Reynolds MC. A handbook of flight simulation fidelity requirements for human factors research. Dayton: Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center Wright-Patterson AFB OH; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaubien JM, Baker DP. The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go? BMJ Qual Saf. 2004;13(suppl 1):i51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schoenherr JR, Hamstra SJ. Beyond fidelity: deconstructing the seductive simplicity of fidelity in simulator-based education in the health care professions. Simul Healthc. 2017;12(2):117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muckler VC. Exploring suspension of disbelief during simulation-based learning. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13(1):3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwyer T, Searl KR, McAllister M, Guerin M, Friel D. Advanced life simulation: high-fidelity simulation without the high technology. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015;15(6):430–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen SR, Cragin L, Rizk M, Hanberg A, Walker DM. PartoPantsTM: the high-fidelity, low-tech birth simulator. Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7(1):e11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laerdal. Important Product Information SimMan Classic, ALS Skillmaster 4000 and ALS SkillTrainer 200 June 4, 2018. Available from:
  13. 13.
    Chiniara G, Cole G, Brisbin K, Huffman D, Cragg B, Lamacchia M, et al. Simulation in healthcare: a taxonomy and a conceptual framework for instructional design and media selection. Med Teach. 2013;35(8):e1380–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bowman SL, Standiford A. Enhancing healthcare simulations and beyond: immersion theory and practice. Int J Role-Play. 2016;6:12–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barrows HS. An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. Acad Med. 1993;68:443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clapper TC. Role play and simulation. Educ Dig. 2010;75(8):39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adam Blatner M. Role playing in education. Retrieved December 2009;30:2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Westerville EC. Role playing: an educational technique. Marriage Fam Living. 1958;20(1):78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haigh C, Hardy P. Tell me a story – a conceptual exploration of storytelling in healthcare education. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(4):408–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srinivasan M, Wilkes M, Stevenson F, Nguyen T, Slavin S. Comparing problem-based learning with case-based learning: effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Acad Med. 2007;82(1):74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 23. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e421–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bianchi L, Gallagher EJ, Korte R, Ham HP. Interexaminer agreement on the American Board of Emergency Medicine oral certification examination. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(6):859–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Susi T, Johannesson M, Backlund P. Serious games: an overview. Skövde: Institutionen för kommunikation och information; 2007.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marescaux J, Clément J-M, Tassetti V, Koehl C, Cotin S, Russier Y, et al. Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery simulation: the next revolution. Ann Surg. 1998;228(5):627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reznek M, Harter P, Krummel T. Virtual reality and simulation: training the future emergency physician. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(1):78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Székely G, Satava RM. Virtual reality in medicine. BMJ. 1999;319(7220):1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vallino JR, Brown CM. Interactive augmented reality. University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science; 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basdogan C, De S, Kim J, Muniyandi M, Kim H, Srinivasan MA. Haptics in minimally invasive surgical simulation and training. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2004;24(2):56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ohyama S, Nishiike S, Watanabe H, Matsuoka K, Akizuki H, Takeda N, et al. Autonomic responses during motion sickness induced by virtual reality. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2007;34(3):303–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee H, Tateyama Y, Ogi T, editors. Realistic visual environment for immersive projection display system. Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM), 2010 16th international conference on, IEEE; 2010.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yellowlees PM, Cook JN. Education about hallucinations using an internet virtual reality system: a qualitative survey. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30(6):534–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sideras S, McKenzie G, Noone J, Dieckmann N, Allen TL. Impact of a simulation on nursing students’ attitudes toward schizophrenia. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11(2):134–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kent SJW, Kent FH, Brown CW, Morrison IG, Morse JC. Should we add smells in simulation training? A systematic review of smells in healthcare-related simulation training. BMJ. 2016;2(1):19–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew David Charnetski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Clinical CompetenceNew York Institute of Technology at Arkansas State University-JonesboroJonesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations