Using SFR in simulation research.
This document explains how researchers can reference the SFR framework in their work. It covers pilot studies, validation studies, rehabilitation studies, and human performance studies. It includes suggested citation language and clarifies what the framework does and does not claim in a research context.
The SFR framework provides researchers with a classification vocabulary for simulation systems based on structural properties rather than manufacturer names or subjective fidelity judgments. This serves two functions in research: it allows researchers to describe their study subjects with precision, and it allows readers of published work to understand whether the simulation system used in one study is structurally comparable to systems used in other studies.
SFR is a proposed standard in active development (v0.9 Draft). It has not been ratified by a named governance authority and has not been peer-reviewed as part of the framework publication process. Researchers who reference SFR should clearly identify its current status. The framework does not imply institutional endorsement of any researcher's findings, nor does a researcher's use of SFR terminology imply endorsement of the framework by their institution.
In pilot studies that involve simulation equipment, SFR classification provides a structural description of the simulation subject that is independent of manufacturer designation. A pilot study that classifies its simulator as Surface-Level under SFR criteria is providing reviewers with actionable information about the system's structural properties, regardless of what the manufacturer calls the system.
Validation studies examining transfer of training from simulation to real-world performance can use SFR classification as the independent variable defining the study cohort's training environment. Comparing transfer of training outcomes between In-the-Loop and Surface-Level classified systems requires that both systems be classified using the same framework and criteria. SFR provides that framework.
Rehabilitation research involving simulation can use SFR classification to describe the sensory conflict profile of the simulation environment used in the study. The SFR Medical Risk Framework and Neurological Reserve documents provide supplementary analysis of sensory conflict mechanisms relevant to neurologically sensitive populations. These documents are informative references, not clinical guidelines.
Human performance studies that compare performance across different simulation environments benefit from a consistent classification variable. SFR classification allows study designs to control for fidelity class — ensuring that performance differences attributed to other variables are not confounded by uncontrolled differences in the simulation environment's structural properties.
The following language is provided as a starting point for researchers who want to describe their use of SFR in their methods or discussion sections. Researchers should adapt this language to their specific context and disciplinary citation conventions. The specific citation format is defined in the Citation Guidelines.
For formal citation format in references sections, see Citation Guidelines.
Researchers are encouraged to use SFR classification and terminology in their work. Doing so contributes to the shared vocabulary that enables cross-study comparison and ultimately supports the framework's advancement toward a formal standard.
The value of a classification framework in research is that it makes study subjects comparable across studies. When two research teams use the same classification system to describe their simulation subjects, a reader can determine whether the systems used are structurally comparable — and therefore whether the results are likely to generalize across both. Without a shared classification framework, every study's simulation environment is described only by manufacturer designation, and cross-study comparison requires assumptions about comparability that may not hold.