Modified PPS
Modified PPS comprises 9 items. Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15 per item)
Note: PPS = Persona Perception Scale. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Analysis complementing the paper "Evaluating an AI-supported serious game in digital health management education: Mixed-Methods Approach" (Hering et al., 2026).
| Instrument | Dimension | n | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPS | - | 15 | 5.95 | 1.01 |
| BUS-11 | - | 15 | 4.18 | 0.70 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | - | 15 | 4.98 | 1.03 |
| Comprehensibility | 15 | 5.17 | 0.75 | |
| Realism | 15 | 5.27 | 0.94 | |
| Teaching design | 15 | 5.11 | 0.80 | |
| Learning outcomes | 15 | 4.53 | 1.29 | |
| CMS Pace | - | 15 | 2.00 | 0.38 |
| CMS Time | - | 15 | 1.67 | 0.49 |
| CMS Scope | - | 15 | 1.80 | 0.41 |
| AI model solutions | - | 15 | 3.98 | 0.66 |
| Completeness | 15 | 4.10 | 0.55 | |
| Traceability | 15 | 3.90 | 0.55 | |
| Justification | 15 | 3.84 | 0.67 | |
| Overall evaluation | 15 | 4.13 | 0.82 | |
| NPS | - | 15 | 8.40 | 1.72 |
Note: n = individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; PPS = Persona Perception Scale, BUS = Bot Usability Scale; CMS = Centre for Management Simulations; M = Mean score; SD = Standard deviation; for process analysis, evaluations of both the current-state and target-state analyses were pooled.
Modified PPS comprises 9 items. Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15 per item)
Note: PPS = Persona Perception Scale. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Modified BUS-11 comprises 7 items. Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15 per item)
Note: BUS = Bot Usability Scale. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Modified CMS Teaching-Learning Experience comprises 10 items. Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15 per item)
Note: CMS = Centre for Management Simulations. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15)
Note: CMS = Centre for Management Simulations. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15)
Note: CMS = Centre for Management Simulations. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15)
Note: CMS = Centre for Management Simulations. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
AI-generated Model Solution comprises 9 items. Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15 per item)
Note: MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 15)
Note: NPS = Net Promoter Score. MSH = Medical School Hamburg; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences.
| Instrument | Dimension | Item | n | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPS | I1: The stakeholders seem like real persons. | 15 | 5.87 | 0.74 | |
| PPS | I2: The quotes from the stakeholders match other information displayed, such as name and position. | 15 | 6.40 | 0.83 | |
| PPS | I3: The information from stakeholders seems consistent. | 15 | 6.07 | 0.88 | |
| PPS | I4: The stakeholders provide enough information to enable decisions to be made on behalf of the respective user group they represent. | 15 | 6.00 | 0.85 | |
| PPS | I5: The stakeholders provide enough information to apply the methods in terms of content completeness. | 15 | 5.93 | 0.80 | |
| PPS | I6: I feel like I understand the stakeholders. | 15 | 6.33 | 0.82 | |
| PPS | I7: I can imagine a day in the life of the stakeholders. | 15 | 5.27 | 1.53 | |
| PPS | I8: I can use the information provided by stakeholders to apply the methods (application of the information). | 15 | 6.27 | 0.96 | |
| PPS | I9: The stakeholders can improve my ability to make decisions about the user group they describe. | 15 | 5.40 | 1.06 | |
| BUS-11 | I1: Communicating with the stakeholders was clear. | 15 | 4.20 | 0.56 | |
| BUS-11 | I2: The stakeholders were able to keep track of context. | 15 | 3.80 | 0.56 | |
| BUS-11 | I3: The stakeholders' responses were easy to understand. | 15 | 4.60 | 0.51 | |
| BUS-11 | I4: I find the stakeholders understand what I want and help me achieve the objective of the course. | 15 | 3.93 | 0.70 | |
| BUS-11 | I5: The stakeholders give me the appropriate amount of information. | 15 | 3.80 | 0.86 | |
| BUS-11 | I6: I feel like the stakeholders' responses were accurate. | 15 | 4.33 | 0.62 | |
| BUS-11 | I7: My waiting time for a response from the stakeholders was short. | 15 | 4.60 | 0.63 | |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Comprehensibility | I1: The game results are easy to follow. | 15 | 4.93 | 0.59 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Comprehensibility | I2: I’ve understood how the simulation works. | 15 | 5.40 | 0.83 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Realism | I3: The case study feels realistic. | 15 | 5.20 | 1.15 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Realism | I4: The situations depicted in the simulation appear realistic. | 15 | 5.33 | 0.72 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Teaching design | I5: The course is well structured throughout all its stages (introduction, briefing, working phase, debriefing, peer group feedback). | 15 | 4.87 | 0.83 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Teaching design | I6: There are ample opportunities to seek feedback from the lecturer. | 15 | 5.13 | 0.83 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Teaching design | I7: Consultations with the lecturer take place in a constructive atmosphere. | 15 | 5.33 | 0.72 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Learning outcomes | I8: I've learnt a ton through the simulation game so far. | 15 | 4.27 | 1.16 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Learning outcomes | I9: My understanding of the subject has developed as a result of the course. | 15 | 4.60 | 1.50 |
| CMS Teaching-Learning | Learning outcomes | I10: I find the simulation game very motivating. | 15 | 4.73 | 1.22 |
| CMS Pace | The pace of the course is ... | 15 | 2.00 | 0.38 | |
| CMS Time | The time available for each game round is ... | 15 | 1.67 | 0.49 | |
| CMS Scope | The scope of the group discussions and lecturer feedback is ... | 15 | 1.80 | 0.41 | |
| AI model solutions | Completeness | I1: ... covered all the key aspects of the method. | 15 | 4.07 | 0.46 |
| AI model solutions | Completeness | I2: ... covered all the key content. | 15 | 4.13 | 0.64 |
| AI model solutions | Traceability | I3: ... clearly illustrated how the results were derived. | 15 | 3.87 | 0.52 |
| AI model solutions | Traceability | I4: ... consisted of steps that built logically upon one another. | 15 | 3.93 | 0.59 |
| AI model solutions | Justification | I5: ... provided enough explanations for the results presented. | 15 | 3.67 | 0.72 |
| AI model solutions | Justification | I6: ... used clearly worded explanations. | 15 | 3.93 | 0.59 |
| AI model solutions | Justification | I7: ... and the explanations they contain helped me to understand the results better. | 15 | 3.93 | 0.70 |
| AI model solutions | Overall evaluation | I8: ... helped me reflect on our approach. | 15 | 4.27 | 0.88 |
| AI model solutions | Overall evaluation | I9: ... supported my understanding of the method and its overall purpose. | 15 | 4.00 | 0.76 |
| NPS | Would you recommend using the simulation game in future courses? | 15 | 8.40 | 1.72 |
Note: n = individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; PPS = Persona Perception Scale, BUS = Bot Usability Scale; CMS = Centre for Management Simulations; M = Mean score; SD = Standard deviation; for process analysis, evaluations of both the current-state and target-state analyses were pooled.