Mixed-methods study evaluates content validity of AI-generated simulation scenario in occupational therapy education, indicating its effectiveness for training.
Background Developing high-fidelity simulation scenarios is a time-consuming process, and validated resources for complex psychomotor skills such as orthotic fabrication are scarce. This study aimed to examine the content validity index (CVI) of a simulation scenario for anticlaw orthosis fabrication developed with the support of artificial intelligence (AI). Methods A mixed-methods methodological study was conducted in an academic education program in Türkiye. Six subject matter experts with professional experience in hand rehabilitation, orthotics, and simulation-based education participated. A simulation scenario package was structured by the researchers, while the specific scenario flow was generated using a seven-step process supported by the generative AI tool ChatGPT. Expert reviewers evaluated five components, specifically objectives, background, prebriefing, scenario flow, and debriefing, using a 4-point Likert scale and open-ended questions. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale level content validity index (S-CVI) were calculated. Results The simulation scenario package was evaluated across five core components. The scenario achieved an I-CVI and S-CVI of 1.00. This indicated that all expert reviewers rated the scenario components as content valid by assigning a score of 3 or 4. Qualitative feedback highlighted the need for refinements in clinical fidelity, specific material choices, and safety warnings regarding heat and sharp tools. Conclusions The study provided educators with a comprehensive, ready-to-implement simulation scenario package, including validated learning objectives, prebriefing instructions, the full scenario script developed via AI-assisted methodology, and debriefing guides, that could be adopted to enhance orthotic training in rehabilitation curricula.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alataş et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: