Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07262424

Debriefing Styles and Clinical Judgment in Nursing Students

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.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

International University of Catalonia

Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, 08195, Spain

Location status: Recruiting

Location contact

Aleix Lopez Oganissian

CONTACT

[email protected]

695579122

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

-Students enrolled in the Basic Simulation Labs 2 (LBS2) course as part of their program.

Exclusion criteria

  • Students who cannot participate in all phases of the study.
  • Students who do not provide informed consent.
  • Students who are repeating the course.

Treatment and study plan

Learner-Centered Debriefing

Behavioral

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 Debriefing

Behavioral

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.

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Student Perceptions of the Learning Experience Assessed by Focus Group Topic Guide

    Time frame: Up to 3 weeks after the final simulation session.

    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.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Aleix Lopez Oganissian, MsC, PhDCandidate

CONTACT

[email protected]

93 504 20 00

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Universitat Internacional de Catalunya

Other

Registry information

Official study title

The Influence of Instructor-centered Versus Learner-centered Debriefing on Clinical Judgment in Nursing Students: A Mixed-methods Experimental Study Protocol.

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
Dec 3, 2025
Registry last updated
Dec 9, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.