Realism in Medical Simulation: Physical, Functional, and Psychological Fidelity

Introduction

Simulation-based training lets healthcare professionals practice skills in a safe, controlled environment. A key concept in simulation is fidelity or realism – how closely a training scenario resembles real life. Realism in medical simulation is multi-dimensional, covering the physical look and feel, the functional behavior, and the psychological experience of the scenario. Educators often assume that more realism is always better, but research shows that is not necessarily true for learning outcomes. Instead, each dimension of fidelity should be adjusted to support specific learning objectives and the level of the learner. In this article, we explain three major types of realism in medical simulation – physical, functional, and psychological fidelity – and discuss how each affects training outcomes and when it matters most for effective education.

Physical Realism (Physical Fidelity)

Physical realism refers to how much the simulation looks, sounds, and feels like the real clinical environment. This includes the authenticity of manikins or anatomy, the equipment and monitors, the clinical setting, and even sensory details like moulage (make-up for injuries) or smells. High physical fidelity means a close replication of the clinical setting – for example, a life-sized manikin in an ICU room with real monitors and realistic anatomical details. Because it’s so visible, physical fidelity is the most immediately noticeable form of realism.

How it affects training: Physical realism can enhance learning when the skills being trained rely on perceiving specific physical cues or performing coordinated movements in a realistic space. For instance, surgical training may benefit from realistic anatomy and instruments, and a trauma scenario may feel more urgent with true-to-life emergency room surroundings. High physical fidelity can improve engagement and make it easier for learners to immerse themselves in the scenario. However, more detail is not always better for learning. Studies have found that adding physical details that are not central to the learning goals offers little benefit and can even distract learners. In fact, if a simulator looks extremely real but its responses or scenario context are not equally realistic, learners might develop “simulation-specific” behaviors that don’t transfer well to real practice. Moreover, elaborate physical realism can increase costs and complexity without improving outcomes if those details are not relevant to the skills being taught. Learners are generally willing to tolerate some lack of physical fidelity as long as the scenario makes sense and feels believable overall.

When it matters: Use high physical fidelity strategically, focusing on elements that are critical to the objectives. If the goal is to teach recognition of subtle clinical signs (like skin color changes or anatomy landmarks) or to practice using actual medical equipment, then physical realism becomes important for effective learning. On the other hand, for early training of basic concepts or cognitive skills, simpler physical setups (low-fidelity manikins or part-task trainers) often work just as well in terms of skill transfer. For example, even a low-tech childbirth pelvis model can teach delivery techniques effectively without a full high-fidelity birthing simulator. The key is to replicate the physical cues that are integral to the task, and not to overload the scenario with superfluous props. Remember that physical realism is only one aspect – it should be balanced with functional and psychological realism to create a coherent learning experience.

Functional Realism (Functional Fidelity)

Functional realism is the degree to which the simulation behaves and responds like real life. It focuses on whether the actions and reactions in the scenario match what would happen with a real patient or equipment. For airway management training, this might include how the airway responds to jaw thrust, how the vocal cords are visualized during laryngoscopy, whether proper head positioning improves the view, or how a bag-valve-mask seals and inflates the lungs. In a high functional fidelity simulation, learner inputs lead to realistic outputs – for example, applying correct technique results in visible chest rise during ventilation, or improper tube placement triggers inadequate lung inflation.

How it affects training: Functional realism is critical for teaching technical skills and decision-making. Learners need accurate feedback from the simulator to know if their actions are correct. High functional fidelity allows trainees to practice the cause-and-effect of clinical interventions. For instance, a defibrillator that actually analyses rhythm and “shocks” in a simulation forces learners to go through the correct steps as they would on a real patient. Research suggests that for building cognitive skills (like clinical reasoning or decision-making), having the simulator respond realistically (high functional fidelity) is more important than having a perfectly lifelike appearance. In other words, a computer-based simulation with authentic physiology and case logic can be very effective for learning, even if the graphics are simple, because it retains the functional properties of the task. If functional fidelity is low – for example, a monitor that always shows normal vitals regardless of what the trainee does – learners may become disengaged or learn the wrong habits, since the simulation is not reinforcing correct actions.

When it matters: Always consider functional fidelity for any skill-based training. If the goal is to teach a procedure, a protocol, or critical thinking, the simulation must behave in a way that mirrors reality enough for learners to practice the correct sequence and get appropriate feedback. This is especially true in emergency scenarios or complex procedures: the patient or system should react to interventions (medications, airway maneuvers, etc.) as a real patient would. In many cases, functional realism can be achieved without high physical realism. For example, virtual patient simulators or screen-based simulations can present clinical cases that unfold realistically (lab results change, patient symptoms progress) even though they aren’t physically tangible. Such simulations can effectively train diagnostic reasoning or team decision-making at a fraction of the cost of a high-end manikin. Ensure that critical functional elements are faithful to reality – this fosters trust in the simulation and helps learners develop correct responses that will transfer to patient care. If a certain response or interaction cannot be simulated (for instance, a manikin can’t cry in pain), the instructor should compensate in another way (like verbally portraying the patient’s response) so that the functional aspect of the scenario remains intact.

Psychological Realism (Psychological Fidelity)

Psychological realism (also called emotional or cognitive fidelity) is the extent to which the simulation feels real to the learner on an emotional and mental level. It’s about creating the same sense of pressure, urgency, or engagement that one would experience in an actual clinical situation. High psychological fidelity means the scenario elicits genuine emotions, stress, and thought processes – the participants forget that they are in a simulation and respond as they would in real life. Elements that contribute to psychological realism include time constraints (e.g. having to make quick decisions), realistic patient behaviours (an actor portraying a distraught relative, or a confederate adding to the chaos of an emergency), and environmental cues like noise, phone calls, or alarms sounding in the room.

How it affects training: Psychological fidelity is crucial for practicing communication, teamwork, and crisis management skills. By reproducing the emotional climate of real clinical encounters, simulations with high psychological realism help learners experience the stress and critical thinking required in those moments. For example, an airway emergency simulation that creates a bit of panic (with an oxygen monitor beeping and a patient actor panicking) can train a team to communicate and perform under pressure – something a calm, orderly scenario wouldn’t accomplish. Higher levels of psychological stress can improve training by acclimating learners to real-world pressures, up to a point. Learners confronted with a realistic level of stress and complexity are more likely to engage fully and reflect on their performance in debriefing. That said, if the stress is too extreme or unrealistic, it might overwhelm participants and hinder learning, especially for novices. The goal is to immerse learners so they take the scenario seriously and respond earnestly, thereby practicing not just technical skills but also emotional resilience and decision-making under pressure.

When it matters: Psychological realism often makes the biggest difference in scenarios involving acute crises, team-based interactions, or any situation where human factors (stress, communication, empathy) are central. In such cases, adding psychological fidelity can be done relatively easily with creative scenario design – and often at low cost. For example, instructors can introduce a sudden complication in the case, or have a manikin or actor simulate a patient’s pain or anxiety, to raise the emotional stakes. Even simple additions like a loud ringtone, an impatient phone call from a consultant, or a ticking clock can elevate the sense of realism and urgency. Unlike physical fidelity, achieving psychological realism usually doesn’t require expensive technology; it requires thoughtful storytelling and environment setup to cue the appropriate emotional responses. Educators should adjust the level of psychological challenge to the learners’ experience – for instance, advanced learners may benefit from high-intensity simulations that test their limits, whereas beginners might need lower-pressure scenarios initially to build confidence. Ultimately, psychological fidelity matters whenever we want learners to behave and feel as if the situation is real, because those genuine reactions often lead to deeper learning and better preparation for real clinical events.

Balancing Fidelity with Learning Goals

Understanding these three dimensions of realism helps simulation educators design better learning experiences. The key is to align the type and level of fidelity with your specific learning objectives and the learners’ needs. Here are some guiding principles for deciding when and where realism matters:

• Let the Objectives Guide Realism: Start by identifying what skills or behaviors you want to teach or assess. Match the fidelity to the task. If you’re teaching a basic skill or concept, a high-tech realistic simulator may not be necessary – a simpler model might teach just as effectively. Conversely, if you’re training a team to manage a cardiac arrest, you may need realistic patient responses (functional fidelity) and a tense atmosphere (psychological fidelity) to meet the objectives. The INACSL simulation design standards note that the level of realism should be the minimum required to achieve the learning goals. In other words, include enough realism to meet your objectives, but no more than that.

• Avoid the “More Fidelity is Better” Trap: It’s a common misconception that maximizing every aspect of realism will automatically lead to better learning. In reality, excessive or irrelevant realism can overload and distract learners. Every extra detail in a simulation adds cognitive load – the learner has more information to process. If those details aren’t directly contributing to the learning, they can impair focus and retention. For example, using a highly complex simulator with many features for a simple task might confuse beginners or draw attention away from the core lesson. Research has shown that learners can become overwhelmed when too many realistic elements demand their attention, to the point that performance and learning suffer. More realism also means more resources and cost, so there must be an educational justification for each element. Simplicity can be a virtue in simulation design: a well-targeted low-fidelity exercise often yields solid learning outcomes, especially in early skill acquisition.

• Consider Learner Experience: The appropriate level of fidelity may vary with the learner’s experience level. Novice trainees often benefit from a gradually increasing complexity. Starting with a low or moderate-fidelity simulation allows them to focus on fundamental skills without being overwhelmed. As they gain competence, higher fidelity scenarios can be introduced to challenge them further and integrate skills. In contrast, advanced learners or practicing clinicians might require more complex, realistic scenarios to stretch their abilities and test their performance under near-real conditions. Tailoring realism to the audience ensures that the simulation remains in the optimal zone of challenge – not too easy (which can feel fake or trivial) but not so realistic that it’s unmanageable.

• Mix Fidelity Dimensions Strategically: You don’t always need to max out all three dimensions of realism at once. Often, a balanced approach works best. For example, you might use a moderately realistic manikin (adequate physical fidelity) that has very authentic physiological responses (high functional fidelity) and run the scenario in a noisy, fast-paced setting with distractions (high psychological fidelity). This mix can create a highly effective learning experience. On the other hand, if you only increase one type of fidelity and neglect the others, the illusion can break. A beautifully realistic mannequin that doesn’t respond to treatment (low functional fidelity) or a very stressful scenario that is obviously fake in appearance might confuse or frustrate learners. Aim for a cohesive realism – the pieces of the simulation (environment, reactions, storyline) should all support the learners in believing in the scenario. When physical, functional, and psychological elements complement each other, participants more easily suspend disbelief and engage fully.

• Resource Management and Feasibility: Finally, consider practical constraints. High-fidelity simulators and fully outfitted simulation labs are wonderful tools but often come with high costs and maintenance needs. It’s important to use these resources judiciously where they have the most impact. Many training goals can be met with simpler or lower-cost methods if they are well-designed. For instance, role-playing with a trained actor (standardized patient) can provide rich psychological realism and functional interaction at a fraction of the cost of a complex manikin – though it might sacrifice some physical fidelity. Always ask, “Is this aspect of realism worth the investment in time, money, and effort? Does it tangibly improve the learning outcome?” If the answer is no, you can probably scale it back. Remember that all levels of fidelity can be effective when used appropriately. The art of simulation education is to find the right balance – enough realism to engage and teach, but not so much that it eclipses the learning.

  
  

By understanding physical, functional, and psychological realism, clinicians and educators can design simulation experiences that are immersive enough to be impactful, without falling into the trap of realism for its own sake. High-fidelity simulation is a powerful tool, but it works best when applied thoughtfully. The ultimate goal is to improve learner outcomes and patient care, and that can be achieved with the right fidelity at the right time. Simulation is most effective when it feels real in the ways that matter for learning, even if that means deliberately keeping some aspects simple.

References

[1] Curtis MT, DiazGranados D, Feldman M. Judicious use of simulation technology in continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012;32(4):255-260. PMID: 23280528.

[2] Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):387-392. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000130.

[3] Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education? Med Educ. 2003;37(Suppl 1):22-28. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.37.s1.9.x.