Simulation Based LearningNCT07262424
Debriefing Styles and Clinical Judgment in Nursing Students
A study testing Learner-Centered Debriefing and Instructor-Centered Debriefing in people with Simulation Based Learning and Nursing Education, run by Universitat Internacional de Catalunya at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
Simulation is a cornerstone of health sciences education, with debriefing being its most critical component for fostering clinical skills. While various debriefing styles exist, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of instructor-centered (ICT) versus learner-centered (LCT) approaches, specifically on… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Simulation Based Learning, Nursing Education, Debriefing Method
- What is being tested?
- Learner-Centered Debriefing and Instructor-Centered Debriefing
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 110 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 10 Oct 2025to May 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- -Students enrolled in the Basic Simulation Labs 2 (LBS2) course as part of their program.
Who cannot join
- Students who cannot participate in all phases of the study.
- Students who do not provide informed consent.
- Students who are repeating the course.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Spain1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
International University of Catalonia
Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, 08195
Aleix Lopez Oganissian, 695579122, aleix.log@gmail.com
About this study
Official title: The Influence of Instructor-centered Versus Learner-centered Debriefing on Clinical Judgment in Nursing Students: A Mixed-methods Experimental Study Protocol.
Simulation is a cornerstone of health sciences education, with debriefing being its most critical component for fostering clinical skills. While various debriefing styles exist, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of instructor-centered (ICT) versus learner-centered (LCT) approaches, specifically on the development of clinical judgment in nursing students.
Read the detailed description
Several studies suggest a general preference for a Learner-Centered (LCT) style during simulation debriefing. However, existing literature and expert opinion often recommend an Instructor-Centered (ICT) style for novice learners or in time-limited situations. It is critical to note that these recommendations are not consistently based on robust scientific evidence, highlighting a significant gap in nursing education research. This study is designed to address this gap by systematically evaluating the impact of ICT versus LCT debriefing on the acquisition of clinical judgment in undergraduate nursing students-a cornerstone competency for professional practice.
The study's central hypothesis is: "The debriefing style, whether instructor-centered (ICT) or learner-centered (LCT), differently impacts students' learning process in clinical judgment."
To test this hypothesis, the study employs a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. The initial quantitative phase consists of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of the two debriefing styles. This will be followed by a qualitative phase, utilizing focus groups, to explore the students' perceptions and experiences, thereby providing a deeper, contextual explanation for the quantitative findings.
To ensure the integrity of the intervention, methodological fidelity will be rigorously monitored. The distinction between the ICT and LCT styles will be verified through objective measures, including the analysis of faculty-to-student talk-time ratios and the mapping of conversation patterns (sociograms) during debriefing sessions. This ensures that the observed differences in learning can be confidently attributed to the assigned debriefing style. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data will yield a comprehensive understanding of how different pedagogical approaches in simulation debriefing influence the complex process of clinical judgment development.
- Being tested
- Learner-Centered Debriefing, Instructor-Centered Debriefing
- Keywords
- Clinical Judgment, Learner-Centered Teaching, Instructor-Centered Teaching, Mixed-Methods Study, Debriefing, Nursing Education, Simulation, Randomized Controlled Trial, Undergraduate Health Education
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Learner-Centered DebriefingBehavioural
Two 2-hour simulation sessions followed by a learner-centered debriefing conducted by a trained facilitator. This style emphasizes guided reflection and co-construction of knowledge.
Instructor-Centered DebriefingBehavioural
Two 2-hour simulation sessions followed by an instructor-centered debriefing conducted by a trained facilitator. This style is the standard practice at the institution and focuses on direct feedback and information transfer from the instructor.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Learner-Centered Debriefing (LCT) | Experimental | Participants in this group will receive a debriefing guided by a learner-centered (LCT) style, where learning is a dynamic process of meaning-making, and both learners and instructors collaborate in the co-construction of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Receives: Behavioral: Learner-Centered Debriefing |
| Instructor-Centered Debriefing (ICT) | Active comparator | Participants in this group will receive a debriefing guided by an instructor-centered (ICT) style, which prioritizes the efficient transfer of information from instructors (who control the learning environments) to learners. Receives: Behavioral: Instructor-Centered Debriefing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Clinical Judgment Assessed by the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR)
Assessment is performed using the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR), a validated 11-item tool. During a standardized practical exam (OSCE), trained evaluators will use novel structured checklists developed by the investigators for this study. A unique checklist has been specifically tailored for each OSCE scenario, designed to operationalize the LCJR by mapping observable student behaviors directly to its scoring criteria. Each item is rated on a 4-point scale (1=beginning to 4=exemplary), yielding a total score from 11 to 44. A higher score indicates a more developed level of clinical judgment. For statistical analysis, the raw score will be transformed to a 0-10 scale.
Measured: Assessed at two time points: at Baseline (measurement taken during the first-term practical exam, prior to the intervention) and Post-Intervention (measurement taken during the final practical exam, approximately 3 months after the baseline assessment).
Secondary outcomes (1)
Student Perceptions of the Learning Experience Assessed by Focus Group Topic Guide
Perceptions and experiences of students and faculty regarding how different debriefing styles influenced the learning of clinical judgment will be explored through semi-structured focus groups. Data collection will be guided by a Focus Group Topic Guide designed to elicit feedback on the debriefing style, application of theoretical concepts, and the learning experience. The metric for assessment is qualitative, consisting of the identification and categorization of recurring themes and sub-themes derived from the thematic analysis of transcribed discussions.
Measured: Up to 3 weeks after the final simulation session.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Dec 2025
- Study start10 Oct 2025
- Primary completionMar 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionMay 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Simulation Based LearningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 110 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Aleix Lopez Oganissian, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07262424
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- LCTandICTDebriefing&ClinJudge
- Status last verified
- Dec 2025
- First submitted
- 17 Nov 2025
- Last updated
- 9 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2015 Apr;10(2):106-15. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072.
PubMed 25710312Roman-Cereto M, Garcia-Mayor S, Kaknani-Uttumchandani S, Garcia-Gamez M, Leon-Campos A, Fernandez-Ordonez E, Ruiz-Garcia ML, Marti-Garcia C, Lopez-Leiva I, Lasater K, Morales-Asencio JM. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in nursing students in Spain. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 May;64:71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.002. Epub 2018 Feb 9.
PubMed 29459195Cheng A, Morse KJ, Rudolph J, Arab AA, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development. Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):32-40. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136.
PubMed 26836466
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Influence of Instructor-centered Versus Learner-centered Debriefing on Clinical Judgment in Nursing Students: A Mixed-methods Experimental Study Protocol.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07262424
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- LCTandICTDebriefing&ClinJudge
- Keywords
- Clinical Judgment, Learner-Centered Teaching, Instructor-Centered Teaching, Mixed-Methods Study, Debriefing, Nursing Education, Simulation, Randomized Controlled Trial
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 110 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Universitat Internacional de CatalunyaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Mar 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- May 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Simulation is a cornerstone of health sciences education, with debriefing being its most critical component for fostering clinical skills. While various debriefing styles exist, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of instructor-centered (ICT) versus learner-centered (LCT) approaches, specifically on the development of clinical judgment in nursing students.
Detailed description
Several studies suggest a general preference for a Learner-Centered (LCT) style during simulation debriefing. However, existing literature and expert opinion often recommend an Instructor-Centered (ICT) style for novice learners or in time-limited situations. It is critical to note that these recommendations are not consistently based on robust scientific evidence, highlighting a significant gap in nursing education research. This study is designed to address this gap by systematically evaluating the impact of ICT versus LCT debriefing on the acquisition of clinical judgment in undergraduate nursing students-a cornerstone competency for professional practice.
The study's central hypothesis is: "The debriefing style, whether instructor-centered (ICT) or learner-centered (LCT), differently impacts students' learning process in clinical judgment."
To test this hypothesis, the study employs a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. The initial quantitative phase consists of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of the two debriefing styles. This will be followed by a qualitative phase, utilizing focus groups, to explore the students' perceptions and experiences, thereby providing a deeper, contextual explanation for the quantitative findings.
To ensure the integrity of the intervention, methodological fidelity will be rigorously monitored. The distinction between the ICT and LCT styles will be verified through objective measures, including the analysis of faculty-to-student talk-time ratios and the mapping of conversation patterns (sociograms) during debriefing sessions. This ensures that the observed differences in learning can be confidently attributed to the assigned debriefing style. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data will yield a comprehensive understanding of how different pedagogical approaches in simulation debriefing influence the complex process of clinical judgment development.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Learner-Centered Debriefing (LCT) | Experimental | Behavioral: Learner-Centered DebriefingParticipants in this group will receive a debriefing guided by a learner-centered (LCT) style, where learning is a dynamic process of meaning-making, and both learners and instructors collaborate in the co-construction of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. |
| Instructor-Centered Debriefing (ICT) | Active comparator | Behavioral: Instructor-Centered DebriefingParticipants in this group will receive a debriefing guided by an instructor-centered (ICT) style, which prioritizes the efficient transfer of information from instructors (who control the learning environments) to learners. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -Students enrolled in the Basic Simulation Labs 2 (LBS2) course as part of their program.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Students who cannot participate in all phases of the study.
- Students who do not provide informed consent.
- Students who are repeating the course.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Learner-Centered DebriefingTwo 2-hour simulation sessions followed by a learner-centered debriefing conducted by a trained facilitator. This style emphasizes guided reflection and co-construction of knowledge. | Behavioural | Learner-Centered Debriefing (LCT) |
| Instructor-Centered DebriefingTwo 2-hour simulation sessions followed by an instructor-centered debriefing conducted by a trained facilitator. This style is the standard practice at the institution and focuses on direct feedback and information transfer from the instructor. | Behavioural | Instructor-Centered Debriefing (ICT) |
Primary outcome
Change in Clinical Judgment Assessed by the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR)
Time frame: Assessed at two time points: at Baseline (measurement taken during the first-term practical exam, prior to the intervention) and Post-Intervention (measurement taken during the final practical exam, approximately 3 months after the baseline assessment).
Assessment is performed using the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR), a validated 11-item tool. During a standardized practical exam (OSCE), trained evaluators will use novel structured checklists developed by the investigators for this study. A unique checklist has been specifically tailored for each OSCE scenario, designed to operationalize the LCJR by mapping observable student behaviors directly to its scoring criteria. Each item is rated on a 4-point scale (1=beginning to 4=exemplary), yielding a total score from 11 to 44. A higher score indicates a more developed level of clinical judgment. For statistical analysis, the raw score will be transformed to a 0-10 scale.
1 secondary outcome
Student Perceptions of the Learning Experience Assessed by Focus Group Topic Guide
Time frame: Up to 3 weeks after the final simulation session.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Dec 2025.
- Background: PubMed 25710312Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2015 Apr;10(2):106-15. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072.
- Background: PubMed 29459195Roman-Cereto M, Garcia-Mayor S, Kaknani-Uttumchandani S, Garcia-Gamez M, Leon-Campos A, Fernandez-Ordonez E, Ruiz-Garcia ML, Marti-Garcia C, Lopez-Leiva I, Lasater K, Morales-Asencio JM. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in nursing students in Spain. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 May;64:71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.002. Epub 2018 Feb 9.
- Background: PubMed 26836466Cheng A, Morse KJ, Rudolph J, Arab AA, Runnacles J, Eppich W. Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development. Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):32-40. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136.
Related trials for Simulation Based Learning
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Gamified Neonatal Initial Care Education on Midwifery Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Midwifery Education, Neonatal Care Education
Recruiting
The Effect of Web-Based Simulation and Flipped Learning on Blood Pressure Education
Education, Education Nursing
Active, not recruiting
Enhancing Male Nursing Students' Competence in Maternity Care: A Quasi-Experimental Study in Egypt
Maternity Nursing, Obstetric Nursing
Not yet recruiting
HMD-Based Virtual Reality Simulation in Nursing Skills Education
Nursing Education Research, Nursing Education
Not yet recruiting
Psychosocial Effects of Empathy-Based Midwifery Education on Midwifery Students and Pregnant Women
Empathy, Anxiety
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Learner-Centered Debriefing and Instructor-Centered Debriefing in people with Simulation Based Learning and Nursing Education, run by Universitat Internacional de Catalunya at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Aleix Lopez Oganissian, MsC, PhDCandidate (93 504 20 00, alopezo@uic.es), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Clinical Judgment Assessed by the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) (time frame: Assessed at two time points: at Baseline (measurement taken during the first-term practical exam, prior to the intervention) and Post-Intervention (measurement taken during the final practical exam, approximately 3 months after the baseline assessment).). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07262424, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Dec 2025.