CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250054en
CoDAS
Original Article

Enhancing preclinical speech-language pathology students’ self-perceived clinical competence using simulated patients

Estella Pui-man Ma; Taiying Lee; Wing-hong Li

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250054en CoDAS, vol.38, n1, e20250054, 2026
PDF
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preclinical simulation-based learning experience in reducing student anxiety in interacting with real patients and enhancing their self-perceived clinical competence.

Methods: Second-year undergraduate speech-language pathology (SLP) students undertaking a preparatory course for clinical work and placement participated. Two clinical case simulation sessions were embedded as part of this course. In each session, two professional actors role-played as caregivers of family members with communication disorders. The first simulation focused on foundational assessment skills, and students were required to obtain a case history with the simulated caregivers. The second simulation focused on intervention, and students recommended communication strategies to the simulated caregivers. Students’ self-perceived level of skills, confidence and anxiety were assessed before and after the simulation sessions.

Results: Students reported significant increases in their confidence level following simulation sessions. They perceived themselves as much better prepared for working with real patients in upcoming clinical placements.

Conclusion: Simulation-based learning experience in a controlled environment enhances preclinical SLP students’ perceived confidence levels and clinical competence.

Keywords

Speech-Language Pathology, University Students, Simulation Training, Learning, Clinical Education, Clinical Reasoning, Clinical Decision Making

Referências

1 Allmark P. A classical view of the theory-practice gap in nursing. J Adv Nurs. 1995;22(1):18-23. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.22010018.x. PMid:7560527.

2 Kenny B, Lincoln M, Killian F. Ethics cases: do they elicit different levels of ethical reasoning? J Acad Ethics. 2015;13(3):259-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9234-6.

3 Sun L, Hung PF. School-based speech-language pathologists’ clinical decision-making process in the state of California. J Speech Pathol Ther. 2018;3(2):133. https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-5005.1000133.

4 Dudley F. The simulated patient handbook: a comprehensive guide for facilitators and simulated patients: London: CRC Press; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315383774.

5 Dudding CC, Brown DK, Estis JM, Szymanski C, Zraick R, Mormer E. Best practices in healthcare simulations: Communication sciences and disorders. Indian Hills: Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders; 2018.

6 Watson K, Wright A, Morris N, McMeeken J, Rivett D, Blackstock F, et al. Can simulation replace part of clinical time? Two parallel randomised controlled trials. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):657-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04295.x. PMid:22646319.

7 Howard V, Englert N, Kameg K, Perozzi K. Integration of simulation across the undergraduate curriculum: student and faculty perspectives. Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2009.10.004.

8 Edwards H, McGuiness B, Rose M. Using simulated patients to teach clinical reasonin. In: Higg J, Jones M, editors. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000. p. 262-9.

9 Moineau S, Bennett D, Scheer-Cohen A. Aphasia simulation: a perspective from the student and standardized patient. Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders. 2018;2(1):6. https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD2.1Moineau.

10 Zraick RI, Allen RM, Johnson SB. The use of standardized patients to teach and test interpersonal and communication skills with students in speech-language pathology. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8(3):237-48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026015430376. PMid:14574048.

11 Penman A, Hill AE, Hewat S, Scarinci N. Speech–language pathology students’ perceptions of simulation‐based learning experiences in stuttering. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2021;56(6):1132-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12645. PMid:34185338.

12 Penman A, Waite M, Hill AE, Leslie TJ, Whelan B-M, Whitehead A. Simulation-based learning experiences in stuttering management delivered online: what do students, clinical educators and simulated patients think? International Journal of Practice-Based Learning in Health and Social Care. 2022;10(1):23-35. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v10i1.733.

13 Sharma S, Ward EC, Burns C, Theodoros D, Russell T. Assessing swallowing disorders online: a pilot telerehabilitation study. Telemed J e-Health. 2011;17(9):688-95. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0034. PMid:21882996.

14 Ward EC, Hill AE, Nund RL, Rumbach AF, Walker-Smith K, Wright SE, et al. Developing clinical skills in paediatric dysphagia management using human patient simulation (HPS). Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;17(3):230-40. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2015.1025846. PMid:25833074.

15 Rumbach AF, Aldridge D, Hill AE. Student perceptions of simulation to enhance clinical readiness for assessment and management of adults with voice disorders. J Voice. 2024;38(3):641-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.10.014. PMid:34848106.

16 Howells S, Cardell EA, Waite MC, Bialocerkowski A, Tuttle N. A simulation-based learning experience in augmentative and alternative communication using telepractice: speech pathology students’ confidence and perceptions. Adv Simul. 2019;4(Suppl 1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-019-0113-x. PMid:31890318.

17 Gore T, Hunt CW, Parker F, Raines KH. The effects of simulated clinical experiences on anxiety: nursing students’ perspectives. Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7(5):e175-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2010.02.001.

18 Australia SP. Competency Based Occupational Standards (CBOS) [Internet]. Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia; 2001 [cited 2025 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/Public/Public/Overseas-trained/Competency-Based.aspx

19 Hill AE, Davidson BJ, Theodoros DG. Speech-language pathology students’ perceptions of a standardised patient clinic. J Allied Health. 2013;42(2):84-91. PMid:23752235.

20 Wilson WJ, Hill A, Hughes J, Sher A, Laplante-Levesque A. Student audiologists’ impressions of a simulation training program. Aust N Z J Audiol. 2010;32(1):19-30. https://doi.org/10.1375/audi.32.1.19.

21 Penman A, Hill AE, Hewat S, Scarinci N. Students’ perceptions of simulation-based learning in speech pathology: A pilot study. International Journal of Practice-based Learning in Health and Social Care. 2020;8(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v8i1.558.

22 Shorland J, Morris C, Stephens D. Simulation speaks for itself: building speech-language pathology students confidence through high quality simulation within a workplace clinical placement. Focus Health Prof Educ. 2018;19(2):53-67. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v19i2.218.

23 MacBean N, Theodoros D, Davidson B, Hill AE. Simulated learning environments in speech-language pathology: an Australian response. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;15(3):345-57. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2013.779024. PMid:23586581.

24 Theodoros D, Davidson B, Hill A, MacBean N. Integration of simulated learning environments into speech pathology clinical education curricula: a national approach [Internet]. Queensland: Health Workforce Australia; 2010 [cited 2025 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/6618513/Integration_of_simulated_learning_environments_into_speech_pathology_clinical_education_curricula_A_national_approach

25 Ryoo EN, Ha EH. The importance of debriefing in simulation-based learning: comparison between debriefing and no debriefing. CIN: Computers, Informatics. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015;33(12):538-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000194. PMid:26587701.

26 Shinnick MA, Woo M, Horwich TB, Steadman R. Debriefing: the most important component in simulation? Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7(3):105-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2010.11.005.
 

Submetido em:
20/02/2025

Aceito em:
18/05/2025

698a5c40a9539540aa02fe84 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Eletrônico)
CoDAS ©2026 Todos os direitos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections