Table 2 Correlation of personal factors, facilitator factors, simulation design factors, and critical thinking outcome (n = 400) with critical thinking

Personal Factors

Attitude toward Simulation-based education

18–90

40–90

Satisfaction– self-confidence

6–30

12–30

Clinical competency– self-efficacy

5–25

9–25

Seriousness - fidelity

4–20

7–20

Barriers– difficulties

3–15

3–15

Perception of professional identity

17–85

27–79

Perceived stress

0–40

0–35

Mild level

0–13

Moderate level

14–26

Severe level

27–40

Facilitator Factors

Perceived teaching competencies

9–27

11–27

Communication

1–3

1–3

Availability

1–3

1–3

Creativity

1–3

1–3

Individual consideration

1–3

1–3

Social awareness

1–3

1–3

Feedback

1–3

1–3

Professionalism

1–3

1–3

Conscientiousness

1–3

1–3

Problem-solving

1–3

1–3

Simulation Design Factors

Attitude toward simulation design

19–95

22–95

Objectives/information

5–25

6–25

Support

4–20

4–20

Problem solving

5–25

7–25

Feedback

4–20

4–20

Fidelity

1–5

1–5

Attitude toward simulation importance

19–95

17–95

Objectives/information

5–25

5–25

Support

4–20

4–20

Problem solving

5–25

5–25

Feedback

4–20

5–20

Fidelity

1–5

0–5

Outcome

Critical thinking level

27–135

74–131

Low level

27–92

Moderate level

93–108

High level

109–135

Critical thinking disposition

Confidence

4–20

7–20

Eager

5–25

9–25

Fairness

4–20

4–20

Objectivity

3–15

7–15

Prudence

4–20

7–20

Scepticism

4–20

7–20

Systematicity

3–15

6–15