Short Communication| Volume 25, P1-5, December 2018

Do Experts and Novices Agree? A Qualitative Review of the 2016 INACSL Standards of Best Practice: SimulationSM Reviewer Feedback

Published:October 30, 2018DOI:



      The International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning published Standards of Best Practice: SimulationSM for the purpose of advancing the science of simulation and sharing best practices.


      This study used a qualitative description to answer the primary research question, how does the type of feedback given by the expert reviewers differ compared with the novice reviewers?


      There were five main themes identified from the reviews: consistency, theory/objectives, reliability/validity, clearly defining expectations, and excellence. Novices and experts had similar themes but differences in details.


      Both types of feedback are important to obtain because users of the standards are both experts and novices.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Simulation In Nursing
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Bende M.
        • Nordin S.
        Perceptual learning in olfaction: Professional wine tasters versus controls.
        Physiology & Behavior. 1997; 62: 1065-1070
        • Chi M.T.
        • Feltovich P.J.
        • Glaser R.
        Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.
        Cognitive Science. 1981; 5: 121-152
        • Cho K.
        • MacArthur C.
        Student revision with peer and expert reviewing.
        Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20: 328-338
        • Cho K.
        • Schunn C.D.
        • Charney D.
        Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts.
        Written Communication. 2006; 23: 260-294
        • Ericsson K.A.
        The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance.
        The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. 2006; 38: 685-705
        • Faubert J.
        Professional athletes have extraordinary skills for rapidly learning complex and neutral dynamic visual scenes.
        Scientific Reports. 2013; 3: 1154
        • Fritz C.
        • Curtin J.
        • Poitevineau J.
        • Morrel-Samuels P.
        • Tao F.C.
        Player preferences among new and old violins.
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012; 109: 760-763
        • Gobet F.
        • Lane P.C.
        • Croker S.
        • Cheng P.C.
        • Jones G.
        • Oliver I.
        • Pine J.M.
        Chunking mechanisms in human learning.
        Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2001; 5: 236-243
        • Gobet F.
        • Simon H.A.
        Five seconds or sixty? Presentation time in expert memory.
        Cognitive Science. 2000; 24: 651-682
        • Graneheim U.H.
        • Lundman B.
        Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures, and measures to achieve trustworthiness.
        Nurse education today. 2004; 24: 105-112
        • INACSL Standards Committee
        INACSL standards of best practice: SimulationSM. President’s message.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016; 12: S3-S4
        • Sittner B.J.
        • Aebersold M.L.
        • Paige J.B.
        • Graham L.L.
        • Schram A.P.
        • Decker S.I.
        • Lioce L.
        INACSL standards of best practice for simulation: Past, present, and future.
        Nursing education perspectives. 2015; 36: 294-298
        • Tani Y.
        • Nagai T.
        • Koida K.
        • Kitazaki M.
        • Nakauchi S.
        Experts and novices use the same factors–but differently–to evaluate pearl quality.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: e86400