What informs this framework, what validates it, and what work remains
This page is a central location for understanding the evidence basis of the SFR framework. It addresses where the framework's concepts come from, what the current validation status is, and what research would be needed to move from a proposed standard to a formally validated one.
This distinction matters. Development means defining the structural criteria, the classification taxonomy, the evaluation methodology, and the conceptual basis for the framework. That work is largely complete for SFR v0.9 Draft. Validation means testing those criteria against real-world systems and outcomes to confirm they measure what they claim to measure. That work has not been conducted.
SFR v0.9 is a proposed standard. The structural criteria, classification taxonomy, and evaluation methodology are defined. Reference examples demonstrate how the process works. Community review is open. The framework is ready to be applied, but it has not yet been validated through controlled research, formal peer review as a standard, or longitudinal outcome studies.
The criteria proposed are grounded in established principles from vehicle dynamics, vestibular neuroscience, human factors research, and training transfer research. But being grounded in existing disciplines is not the same as having been validated as a measurement standard.
A classification standard that is not validated is a hypothesis about how systems should be categorized. It may be well-reasoned, grounded in established science, and internally coherent, but without empirical validation, it remains a proposal rather than a confirmed measurement tool.
For SFR, validation matters on three levels. First, criterion validity: does meeting the structural criteria (physics-derived motion, independent axes, center-of-mass reference) actually predict a difference in training outcomes? Second, construct validity: does the classification taxonomy correctly distinguish systems in a way that reflects real differences in how participants process the simulation experience? Third, practical validity: can evaluators reliably apply the criteria to real systems and reach consistent results?
Answering these questions requires controlled research, multi-evaluator reliability studies, and longitudinal outcome data. None of that has been done for SFR v0.9 yet. The framework is designed to support that research, not to replace it.
The framework draws on established research in vehicle dynamics, vestibular neuroscience, and human performance. That research informs and justifies the structural criteria. The criteria are not invented, they reflect documented principles from these disciplines.
Validation means testing whether the framework's specific criteria, applied as a classification standard, produce reliable, meaningful distinctions between systems that predict real differences in training outcomes. This requires empirical research specifically designed to test the framework.
SFR did not emerge from a vacuum. Its structural criteria are grounded in established research across several disciplines. These disciplines provided the principles on which the framework is built, but none of them constitute validation of SFR itself as a classification standard.
A full account of these research areas, including the distinction between influence and validation, is available on the Existing Influences page.
Six research disciplines that informed the SFR criteria, vehicle dynamics, vestibular neuroscience, human performance, training transfer, aviation simulation, and human factors. Includes explicit distinction between influence and validation.
Read full account →How SFR's evaluation methodology assigns evidence tiers to different types of inputs, from directly measured telemetry (Tier 1) to unverified manufacturer claims (Tier 4).
Read evidence hierarchy →The following initiatives are currently underway or active within the SFR framework development process. These are development and community review activities, they are not external validation studies.
SFR v0.9 is open for community review. Practitioners, researchers, engineers, and other stakeholders can submit structured feedback on the classification criteria, evaluation methodology, and governance framework. Feedback is logged, reviewed, and incorporated into future versions of the standard. This is not peer review of a research paper, it is public commentary on a proposed standard.
Two reference evaluation examples (Reference Evaluation A and B) have been completed using hypothetical systems. These demonstrate the evaluation process and establish a reference for what a consistent, documented evaluation looks like. They are training and calibration tools, not empirical data on real systems.
A standardized evaluation record template is available for organizations that want to conduct self-assessments or prepare for potential formal evaluations. The template ensures that evidence is collected and documented in a format consistent with the SFR evaluation process.
A pilot validation program is planned but not yet launched. This program will involve evaluations of real simulation systems by independent evaluators following the SFR methodology. The purpose is to test inter-evaluator reliability and identify any gaps in the evaluation criteria before broader adoption. Details are in development.
Moving a proposed standard through validation is a staged process. The stages below represent the intended validation path for SFR. Current status and forward steps are described for each stage.
The framework is fully documented. Structural criteria, evaluation methodology, classification taxonomy, and governance are defined. Reference examples exist. Community review is open. This stage is complete.
Independent evaluators apply the SFR methodology to real simulation systems. This tests whether the criteria can be reliably assessed from available evidence, identifies documentation gaps in real-world systems, and builds a corpus of actual evaluation records. This stage has not yet begun.
Multiple independent evaluators assess the same systems. Results are compared to measure agreement. Criteria with low inter-evaluator reliability are revised or clarified. This stage requires real systems and multiple trained evaluators.
Research specifically designed to test whether SFR classification tiers predict differences in training transfer, neurological adaptation, and human performance outcomes. This is the most demanding validation stage and requires controlled research designs with human participants.
Submission to an independent standards body or peer review process. This is not simply expert opinion, it is a formal review of the standard against its own evidence base, conducted by parties with no prior involvement in the framework's development. Adoption by a standards body would move SFR from a proposed standard to a formally recognized one.
For the full validation roadmap with stage-by-stage requirements, see Validation Roadmap.
The validation path described above requires participation from universities, research institutions, simulation operators, and human performance laboratories. There are no active recruitment programs at this stage, but the framework is designed to support future research participation, and the page below describes what that participation could look like.
For universities, research institutions, human performance labs, and rehabilitation researchers interested in future research and evaluation opportunities. Informational only, no active programs.
Read participation overview →A detailed account of the five-stage validation path, what each stage requires, and what has been completed at each stage. A transparent record of where the framework stands.
Read validation roadmap →