Centre for Virtual Patients

1. Centre for Virtual Patients Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Benjamin Hanebeck1; Stephan Oberle1; Jörn Heid2; Frank Hess2; Inga Hege3; Martin Fischer4; Martin Haag2; Sören Huwendiek1 1Department of General Paediatrics, University Hospital for Adolescent and Paediatric Medicine and Centre for Virtual Patients, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2Centre for Virtual Patients, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany ; 3Ludwig-Maximilians-University München, Germany ; 4University Witten-Herdecke, Germany 2nd International Conference on Virtual Patients & MedBiquitous Annual Conference, 28.04.2010

2. Centre for Virtual Patients Introduction • Developing new virtual patients (VP) is costly • Repurposing existing VP is a reasonable means to save resources • However, transfer of VP between different VP systems is complicated

3. Introduction VP Standard was established: Medbiq VP taken as part of the eViP-standard as a shared structure System specific features can be covered by extensions QTI extension for knowledge-questions ... Additionally, a repurposed VP needs to be adapted to local needs (content, scenario) Centre for Virtual Patients

4. Introduction Efforts, boundaries and benefits of using the eViP-standard to transfer a VP from one VP-system to another are, as yet, unreported. Does the standard reduce efforts by enabling automatic repurposing? Centre for Virtual Patients

5. Introduction Efforts, boundaries and benefits of using the eViP-standard to transfer a VP from one VP-system to another are, as yet, unreported. Does the standard reduce efforts by enabling automatic repurposing? Centre for Virtual Patients

6. Methods Development of a new CAMPUS player component enables playback of eViP-Standard-compliant material Centre for Virtual Patients

7. Methods Modification of the CAMPUS authoring component to enable …import of eViP-Standard compliant VP with QTI support … editing of the imported VP Centre for Virtual Patients

8. Methods Choice of an appropriate VP-System for VP exchange / automated repurposing CASUS and CAMPUS linear VP structures QTI extension Selection of 15 VP from CASUS in average 17,7 cards/VP (± 6,2) Centre for Virtual Patients

9. Methods - Manual repurposing A new blank CAMPUS VP was created The content was copied manually from the existing CASUS VP into the CAMPUS authoring component Question were recreated where possible, Media was embedded Efforts were noted by using the eViP effort sheet Centre for Virtual Patients

10. Methods - Automated repurposing An eViP-Standard compliant export of the CASUS VP was imported into the CAMPUS authoring component Centre for Virtual Patients

11. Playback and check of the VP Corrections were made where necessary Efforts were noted manually In all cases of manual and automatic import: No efforts for content adaption were taken into account Centre for Virtual Patients Methods - Automated repurposing

12. Results – Manual repurposing Centre for Virtual Patients It took 11,3 hours in average / VP.

13. Results – Automated repurposing Centre for Virtual Patients It took 1,8 hours in average / VP.

14. Results – Automated repurposing: Issues Centre for Virtual Patients • Problems: • Hyperlinks imported incorrectly • (concerning CASUS Expert Network, links to videos, external resources…) • Some questions displayed incorrectly (e.g. sorting task) • Layout problems (e.g. different font types) • Labels of pictures not displayed • Solutions: Manual corrections

15. Boundaries Centre for Virtual Patients • Originating VP has to be eViP-Standard compliant • As many extensions as possible should be shared between the used VP systems (e.g. QTI) • Results were achieved with easy repurposing approach (linear pathway, QTI extension, same language) • Efforts increase with differences between VP systems (e.g. linear vs. branched)

16. Benefits Centre for Virtual Patients • Repurposing VP is a lot more time efficient by using an automated import • Only little corrections necessary • Adaptations / extension of content in target VP system possible • Improving of export/import-functionalities continuously increases quality of interoperability

17. Conclusion Centre for Virtual Patients • Repurposing VP using the eViP-standard can save time and efforts • Not completely automated but semi-automated repurposing process +

18. Centre for Virtual Patients Thank you! Contact: www.campusvirtuals.de

20. Is still done • but beforehand • only once • Resulting in an increase • in interoperability

23. Results – manual repurposing Centre for Virtual Patients It took 11,3 hours in average / VP.

24. Results – automated repurposing: Problems and Solutions Centre for Virtual Patients

25. Results – automated repurposing Centre for Virtual Patients It took 1,8 hours in average / VP.

26. Introduction Remaining problem: Teaching content sometimes differs not only internationally but also nationally Often an identical reproduction of a VP is not satisfactory for teachers Need: No playback-only solution, but possibilities to edit and adapt a VP Centre for Virtual Patients

27. Results – manual repurposing: Problems and Solutions Centre for Virtual Patients • Missing question types • Problem: some types are not natively supported by CAMPUS authoring component (e.g. rating of symptoms, sorting tasks) • Solution: • manual substitution by an available question type (e.g. MCQ, free text) covering the same content • manual creation of an interactive graphic based on Flash using an editor implemented in CAMPUS

28. Methods Centre for Virtual Patients • CAMPUS, a system for learning with VP exists since 1996 • Consists of • An authoring system • A simulative Java based player • A card-based eViP standard compliant player • An application for secure, keyfeature-based assessments • Linear order of interactions