Scenario-based simulation training for incident management: for whom and how

Abstract

As policing involves high-stakes situations, scenario-based simulation training (SBST) helps officers develop decision-making skills in stressful environments. Virtual simulations offer a cost-effective way to replicate real-life incidents. This study explores how police officers perceive SBST in a virtual environment. This research aims to find if fidelity is important when creating scenarios and understand officers’ expectations and perceptions of SBST. The findings indicate that officers’ demographics and prior work experiences influence how they perceive those exercises. Officers who have spent a large proportion of their years in service found SBST to be able to meet the intended learning objectives. Future research could explore whether similar demographic effects are present in other law enforcement agencies to improve the design of effective simulations.

INTRODUCTION

The unpredictable and high-stakes nature of incidents in today’s society demands that law enforcement officers be well-prepared to handle a wide range of situations, requiring dynamic sense-making and decision-making skills. Thus, the training of officers for incident management across different environments and command levels is a critical aspect of their professional development. Beyond essential procedural and tactical training, there is a need to prepare officers to make effective decisions in stressful and ambiguous situations.

With the evolution of technology, scenario-based simulation training (SBST) in virtual environments has emerged as a vital tool that complements table-top exercises by providing officers with realistic and immersive experiences to hone their psychological skills. SBST offers opportunities for repeated practice and reflection in dynamic incidents while significantly reducing the resources required compared with live ground deployment exercises.

However, the effectiveness of the SBST hinges on its ability to replicate real-life scenarios as perceived by the officers. For simulations to be effective for skills training or psychological experimentation purposes, they must have the requisite levels of fidelity to elicit realistic behaviour (Gray 2019). Fidelity in a simulation refers to the extent to which it recreates the real visual, auditory, and haptic elements, allowing the user to perceive the input as the same as the actual event (Harris et al., 2021). Therefore, preparing and designing the simulation pedagogically to optimize learning conditions is crucial. As experience within the scenario is largely individualistic, delving into officers’ demographics to understand how they perceive the importance and replication of different areas of fidelity in such training will enhance the design of scenarios to better meet the learning needs of diverse officer profiles.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Scenario-based simulation training

SBST largely adopts principles of adult learning where instructors act as facilitators, instead of trainers, to facilitate the learning process (Jenkins et al., 2021). SBST offers adequate opportunities for officers to perform essential skills in a training environment that closely resembles real-world conditions. In an operating environment with little margin for error, SBST enables officers to experience chaos, uncertainty, and ambiguity as close to actual situations as possible.

To train officers in managing incidents and in honing their decision- and sense-making skills, trainers often create possible scenarios or recreate major events that happened previously. These scenarios can be in the form of live exercises, where other officers, actors, and even members of the public, take on roles within the scenario to assess the active officer. With the advancement of technology, such simulation scenarios can also be created within virtual environments. From experiencing scenarios through a video of an incident (Zimmerman 2006) to highly immersive virtual reality head-mounted devices (Farra et al., 2015), simulation training can occur in different forms. Technological tools allow meaningful learning by integrating situated learning into classrooms (Harley 1993), especially when it is set in the context of the situation where the skills are intended to be used (Farra et al., 2015).

How do officers learn?

At a training academy, adult learning theories underpin the design of all programmes for officers. Several learning theories describe how individuals acquire their skills and knowledge through practice and experience. These skills and expertise are often based on domain-specific knowledge and cognitive skills (Ericsson et al., 1993). In the context of learning as adults, learning theories focus on the social context of learning and experiential learning—learning by doing. Socio-cultural approaches to learning involve creating and emphasizing the social and cultural contexts for learning to occur. Learning takes place as a process of social participation where officers move from peripheral participation and less critical work tasks to deepening participation and full involvement in the communities of practices (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998).

Situated cognition draws on the work of Brown et al. (1989), who proposed that meaningful learning will only take place if it is embedded in the social and physical context within which it will be used. Concepts of situated and authentic learning have an interdependent relationship with realism and presence in a simulated environment (Davies 2013). Thus, creating authentic activities with real-world relevance is conducive to creating situated learning environments and experiences (Reeves et al., 2002).

Experiential learning fosters the development of knowledge, skills, and attributes (KSAs) that can be applied in operational settings. Officers can leverage their experiences from these learning environments to better assess situations and make decisions during real-world encounters. Through such exercises, they encounter the anxiety, uncertainty, and cognitive challenges associated with managing large-scale incidents. This approach aligns with research that indicates that enhancing learning, retention, and the transfer of KSAs to improve performance in dynamic, high-stress environments require officers to have targeted practice in similar settings (Lave and Wenger 1991).

Development of scenarios

Although trainers acknowledge the benefits of SBST and understand the need to design exercises that closely replicate real-life situations, trainers often question whether there exists a specific approach to the development of scenarios for simulation. Wollert and Quail (2018) identified four specific areas of fidelity that should be incorporated to maximize the effectiveness of SBST. These four areas are: (1) psychological fidelity—mental processes experienced in real encounters, such as anxiety levels, (2) physiological fidelity—internal physiological states experienced in real encounters, such as elevated heart rate induced by physical exertion, (3) physical fidelity—physical features found in real encounters, such as weapons, and (4) contextual fidelity—context of real encounters, such as the amount and type of information presented to officers. Studies have shown that the effectiveness of SBST depends on how closely simulated environments resemble operational environments (Andersen and Gustafsberg 2016), thus ensuring high levels of fidelity in SBST will improve its effectiveness.

In addition to considering areas of fidelity to ensure that scenarios are as close to the actual situations as possible, stressors could be incorporated into exercises. Studies have shown that elevated stress levels can lead to cognitive deficits, emotional reactions, and physiological changes (Andersen and Gustafsberg 2016), which may subsequently impair officers’ performance during actual situations. Hence, scenarios should incorporate stressors for officers’ to be aware of the high levels of stress during incidents and learn to mitigate the negative consequences for them to continue operating despite the high-stress environment (Driskell et al., 2008).

Other than ensuring that injects and scenarios fit learning objectives, without debriefing, one is unable to conclude whether learning has taken place. Hence, trainers need to facilitate the learning process through after-action reviews. Strategies that trainers could adopt include having trainees generate answers to questions, explain reasons for their decisions, and critically reflect on the material and skills they are learning (Bennell et al., 2021). Exercise debriefs are as important as the exercises themselves as it is during the debriefs that officers could discuss the decision-making process they went through during a scenario and get instructor feedback on this process and their performance (Bennell and Jones 2004; Wollert and Quail 2018). Therefore, conducting a debrief becomes a crucial component of the learning process (Vickers 2007; Schmidt and Lee 2014).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research questions

This study aims to ascertain the differences between different demographic groups in how they perceive SBST. This includes determining how effective the simulation was in replicating expected fidelity within the exercise and how it contributed towards their learning. Hence, the study aims to answer the following questions:

1. How does the perceived effectiveness vary across different groups of officers; and

2. How effective was the simulation in influencing the transfer of learning?

Research methods

A questionnaire was developed based on Wollert and Quail (2018) four areas of fidelity. This study was done for a training academy in Singapore. Convenience sampling was done for this study as these exercises were run specifically for targeted officers. Law enforcement officers going through milestone programmes will go through a scenario-based simulation exercise at the end to consolidate their learning. All officers from the same cohort will go through the same simulation exercise, each lasting between 15 and 30 minutes. The exercise is conducted through a virtual simulation system where officers take on roles as ground officers and are tasked to respond to an incident involving a barricaded situation. Exercise management staff control how the scenario unfolds from a set of injects, depending on how officers respond to the incident.

The questionnaire was given at the end of the day after their training and comprised forty-seven items, of which three were open-ended questions. The first part of the questionnaire sought officers’ perceptions of how important fidelity was to them in a simulation exercise. The second part pertained to the exercise that they had just gone through and the level of fidelity it was able to simulate. Quantitative data were collected using a five-point Likert scale for comparison and analysis.

FINDINGS

Descriptive statistics

The survey was made available to the officers for a period of 2 weeks after the simulated exercise which they had gone through and was collected from two different groups of officers over two different settings, in Course A and Course B. Officers from Course A have generally been in the force for a longer time, progressing through the ranks, while officers from Course B are directly recruited to take on senior roles. The link was given to a total of fifty-three officers with 100% completion rate, and 89% of the respondents were male, of which 58.5% were below the age of 45. Proportionally, there were fewer female officers within Course A (6%, n = 2) than within Course B (21%, n = 4). Lastly, only ~25% of the officers have been in service for less than 20 years. The detailed demographics of the officers are shown in Table 1.

Analysis of officers’ demographic profiles was carried out to better understand how officers’ preferences were correlated with their age, years in service, and years of frontline experience. In our study, frontline experience has been defined as positions where daily operations require interaction with members of the public or managing ground operations. Frontline experience could include work areas such as patrol duties or incident response. While non-frontline experience could include work areas such as planning functions and administrative support. These demographic data were collated so that analysis could be done on whether expectations and perceptions towards SBST were influenced by frontline experience. Course A had a significantly higher percentage (61.7%) of officers over the age of 45 compared with Course B (5.3%). Similarly, Course A had a notably higher proportion (94%) of officers with more than 20 years of service compared with Course B (42%). However, having more years in service does not necessarily translate to having more years of frontline experience. The percentage of officers with at least 5 years of frontline experience was comparable between Course A (44%) and Course B (58%). The mean age of officers from Course A and Course B is 45.1 and 35.8 years old, respectively, while the average frontline experience for Course A and Course B is 7.1 and 10.1 years, respectively. It is useful to note that Course B comprised significantly younger officers with more frontline experience than Course A. Correspondingly, the average number of years in service of officers from Course A and Course B is 23.2 and 13.7 years, respectively. The detailed distribution of age, number of years in service, and number of years of frontline experience are shown in Tables 2–4.

Analysis

Importance of fidelity within simulation

The first segment of the questionnaire sought to ascertain officers’ expectations of a simulation exercise and the level of realism it should be able to recreate compared with actual incidents. The questions were designed to solicit responses for four areas of fidelity: (1) Psychological fidelity (Questions 1 to 4, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.952); (2) Contextual fidelity (Questions 5 to 7, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.934;); (3) Physical Fidelity (Questions 8 to 11, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.784), and (4) Physiological Fidelity. Overall, the instrument had good reliability (alpha = 0.941).

As the exercise was conducted in an indoor training environment with officers navigating through a virtual scene, it was challenging to replicate physical conditions such as weather and physical environments. By extension, physiological responses, such as increased heart rate and breathing, perspiration due to physical environment and stress, were difficult to replicate. Thus, this study focuses on officers’ responses to the first seven questions—namely how important they view any simulation exercise to be able to recreate psychological and contextual fidelity. Responses were further categorized from a five-point Likert scale onto a binary scale where officers considered those fidelity statements either (1) important; or (2) not important or felt neutral about it. The number of statements that officers deemed important to recreate in a simulation exercise was counted for each of the seven questions, and descriptive statistics were computed. Figures 1 and 2 show scatter plots for each of the dependent variables: Age, Years in Service, and Years of Frontline experience and statistical description in Table 5.

Of the officers who agreed that it was important to recreate all seven statements, the mean age, years in service, and years of frontline experience of the four officers from Course A are 45, 23, and 7 years, respectively. In comparison, the mean age, years in service, and years of frontline experience of the officers from Course B are 35, 13, and 8 years, respectively. Three officers who felt that there was no need to recreate fidelity within the simulation exercise were all from Course A. These officers from Couse A were older in age and spend approximately half the time in frontline (mean age = 45, years in service 24, frontline experience = 12 years).

Experienced level of fidelity within simulation

Officers were also asked to rate their experience within the simulated exercise and assess whether it was able to recreate the expected psychological and contextual fidelity. Similarly, the number of statements where officers agreed that the exercise recreated the expected fidelity was counted for each of the seven questions. Figures 3 and 4 show scatter plots for each of the dependent variables: Age, Years in Service, and Years of Frontline experience and statistical description in Table 6.

The officers’ extent of agreement on whether the exercise was able to recreate the level of fidelity spread across a broader range of values. Overall, 84% (n = 16) of the officers from Course B felt that the exercise could fully simulate psychological and contextual fidelity, compared with only 47% of the officers from Course A who felt the same. These officers in Course B had a significantly lower mean age (36 years old for officers from Course B, as compared with 45 years old for officers from Course A) but a higher number of years of frontline experience (10 years for officers from Course B, as compared with 5 years for officers from Course A). Officers who agreed with less than four out of the seven statements were all from Course A (n = 11, 32%) and had an average of age of 45 and 7.8 years of frontline experience. This indicates that officers from Course B had a greater extent of agreement on whether the training exercise was able to simulate the uncertainty and stress that they would go through in real life.

Paired comparison between level of importance and experienced fidelity

Lastly, a paired comparison was done to assess whether the simulation exercise was able to meet officers’ expectations in simulating psychological and contextual fidelity. It involved counting the number of fidelity statements that officers considered important and agreed that the exercise was able to recreate. A count of seven would imply that the officer viewed all fidelity statements to be important within a simulation and that the exercise was able to provide the expected realism for all of them. Graphical representation of the responses is depicted in Figures 5 and 6 and Table 7. Figures 7 and 8 and Table 8 showed details of officers who felt that fidelity within simulated exercise was important, but the exercise was unable to recreate them.

Similar to the earlier results, virtual simulation exercises fared better amongst officers from Course B with 79% of the officers agreeing that it has met the expectations for all fidelity statements compared with only 44% of officers from Course A agreeing with the same. These officers from Course B had an average age of 36 with 9 years of frontline experience, as compared with the officers from Course A with an average age of 45 and 5 years of frontline experience. It is noted that only officers from Course A felt that the exercise could only meet the expectations for three or less statements, which represented 35% (n = 12) of the officers from the course. These officers who felt that the exercise fell short of their expectations had an average age of 45.25 with 7.75 years of frontline experience. On the other hand, all officers from Course B felt that the simulated exercise could meet the expectations of at least four fidelity statements.

A total of 23% (n = 8) of the officers from Course A felt that the exercise was not able to provide the realism required within the scenario for at least four out of the seven fidelity statements. These officers had a mean age of 45.5 years old with 6.25 years of frontline experience. This is significantly different for officers from Course B, where 84% (n = 16) of them felt that there were no fidelity areas where the exercise could not be recreated. Again, these officers were younger (mean age = 36) with a higher number of years of frontline experience (mean years of frontline experience = 10).

Perceived transfer of learning

The intent of simulation training was, first and foremost, to create an environment as close to actual situations as possible so that officers could develop the skills required to manage those incidents. The effectiveness of such scenarios and how they influence learning for different groups of officers are therefore critical for scenario designers. The second part of the questionnaire contained six questions that sought officers’ responses to whether the simulated exercise was sufficiently able to support their learning. The number of questions where officers agreed or strongly agreed with those statements was computed against age and years of frontline experience. Figures 9 and 10, and Table 9 show the distribution of results.

The results showed that officers from Course B agreed that the scenario was able to create an environment that was suitable for learning. The responses from Course A, however, were varied. Notably, only officers from Course A had agreed with less than five statements on the usefulness of the exercise for their learning. The ten officers had an average age of 46.7 and 6 years of frontline experience. In comparison, all officers from Course B who agreed that the exercise was useful for their learning were younger (mean age = 36.5) and had a significantly higher number of years of frontline experience (mean years of frontline experience = 10 years). The difference between officers’ profiles and their perceptions towards the effectiveness of learning appears to be dependent on officers’ age and years of frontline experience in the service.

The officers’ perceptions of whether they viewed the scenarios as being able to meet the expected realism were directly related to their perceptions of whether the scenario was effective in influencing their learning. From Figure 11, most officers (n = 29, 85%) who agreed with all six statements pertaining to learning transfer, agreed with at least six out of the seven statements that the scenario was able to meet their expectations. Similarly, officers (n=4) who agreed with less than three statements pertaining to learning transfer also agreed with less than three out of seven fidelity statements. It is evident that fidelity directly impacts officers’ learning within the simulated environment.

DISCUSSION

For whom fidelity is important in SBST

For SBST to be effective, the simulations must have the minimum level of fidelity to create realistic behaviours (Gray 2019; Harris et al., 2020). In this study, virtual simulation exercises sought to recreate actual operational situations by putting officers through high-fidelity simulated environmental conditions, including the recreation of real tasks using visual and auditory information (Harris et al., 2021). These exercises incorporated a series of psychological, physical, physiological, and contextual areas of fidelity to fully immerse officers within the exercise.

One of the key purposes of the use of SBST in the study presented in this paper is to train officers to accurately respond to critical incidents in accordance with standard operating procedures, efficiently sense the situation and then decide the next best course of action given the situation. Research has established that performance training that integrates with occupationally relevant stress produces efficient results (Oudejans and Pijpers 2009). Hence, we wanted to find out if this sentiment resonated with the officers and whether officers with different demographics had different expectations of simulation exercises within virtual environments. While 95% of the officers agreed that it was important to recreate psychological and contextual fidelity within the simulation, 10% (n = 3) of the officers from Course A did not view fidelity as important to such SBST. These officers are all above the age of 40, with an average of 24 years in service, with half their years of service in frontline roles. Comparatively, all officers from Course B were in concurrence that psychological and contextual fidelity was important for simulation exercises. These officers were all younger, though with significantly fewer number of years in service (n = 13), and had spent a great proportion of their service in the frontline (77% of their years in service is spent in frontline). This suggests that the realism of simulation exercise is more crucial for officers whose work experiences are grounded on frontline operations compared with officers who may have spent a lower proportion of their years in service in the frontline.

As the simulation was created within a virtual environment where scenario injects and interactions were with virtual avatars, this research also hopes to find out how effective the exercises have been in recreating both psychological and contextual fidelity. The results showed that officers’ perceptions of the scenario’s effectiveness aligned with their expectations of whether a scenario should recreate contextual and psychological fidelity. While responses varied, all officers from Course B concurred that the scenario was able to simulate at least four out of the seven fidelity statements, whereas only 32% of the officers from Course A agreed with less than half of these statements. It appears that the profiles of officers play critical and determining roles to their expectations of those exercises and how they perceive the experience within the simulation. Officers who are older in age, but with a lower proportion of frontline experience, were less likely to agree that the simulation was effective in recreating these two areas of fidelity.

Effectiveness of simulation in relation to perceptions of fidelity in SBST

To understand whether the exercise was able to meet officers’ expectations of a simulation exercise, results between the two questions, (1) important areas of fidelity within simulated environments and (2) whether the exercise had successfully replicated those fidelity areas, were compared. Of the seven fidelity statements officers deemed important, all officers from Course B agreed with at least four statements that the training could recreate within the simulation. However, 35% of the officers from Course A agreed with less than half of the seven statements. This result is similar to the officers from Course A (n = 11) who considered the fidelity statements important but did not agree that the scenario was able to recreate them. Notably, these officers have been in service for over 20 years, with less than half their years in service in frontline roles.

The factors that appear to be consistent across the findings are that officers’ age and corresponding frontline experiences determine their expectations and perception of the simulation exercise that they went through. Younger officers may be more receptive to virtual training methods due to their greater exposure to technology throughout their lives (Bertram et al., 2015). Correspondingly, officers who are older in age with less frontline experience may not perceive SBST as ideal for honing operational skills. With longer years of service, officers may naturally hold different expectations of an ideal training experience and their individual conceptions of daily operations, particularly if they had varying frontline experience.

While research has shown that operational skills are best honed in high-fidelity environments that are as close to operational conditions as possible, officers’ prior knowledge and lived experience in operational settings must be considered when designing simulation training exercises. This finding echoes Davies and Krame’s (2024) where differences in perceptions towards physical and psychological fidelity were found between novice and experienced participants. The varying opinions towards the effectiveness of the scenarios can then be addressed through varying the type of exercises and scenarios to ensure that they build on officers’ prior knowledge. Scenarios given to officers who are newly exposed to simulation exercises can be more predictable and consistent before progressing to a scenario resembling highly stressful or critical incidents. Integrating SBST that accounts for officers’ prior knowledge and lived experiences is crucial in ensuring effective learning outcomes. This approach not only enhances skill development but also fosters a deeper understanding of decision-making processes in complex and high-stress situations.

Moreover, the utilization of highly stressful virtual environments for officers with significant frontline experience can serve as a means to stress-test their boundaries and enhance their expert training. Exposing these experienced officers to challenging and high-stress scenarios provides an opportunity to refine their decision-making skills under intense pressure, thereby maximizing their management and leadership performance in real-world situations.

Learning within SBST

Within the framework of situated cognition, virtual simulations provide learning opportunities that contain critical characteristics of traditional apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989; Herrington and Oliver 1995). Such situated cognition enables the expansion of individual cognitive knowledge, coupled with social and physical interactions, to facilitate cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning (Hannafin and Hannafin 2010). Given the risks associated with ground operations in law enforcement, a traditional apprenticeship may not be ideal as it puts all officers at risk if we pair novice officers with experienced ones during critical incidents to create learning opportunities. Virtual simulations can complement on-the-job training in preparing them for deployment and ensuring their proficiency. Hence, understanding whether such simulations contribute towards the transfer of learning and the appropriate demographics of officers best suited for such simulation training is critical.

As with earlier results, officers from Course B agreed that the simulation exercise had served its intended training objectives. These officers had spent a greater proportion of their years in service on the frontline. Therefore, they are able to appreciate the high uncertainty and huge amount of information within the scenarios and integrate with their own existing knowledge of frontline operations to de-escalate situations. Hence, these officers have shown higher perceptual-cognitive expertise through their ability to identify surrounding information for integration with existing knowledge and selecting appropriate responses that can be executed (Mann et al., 2007). On the other hand, 29% (n = 10) of the officers from Course A agreed with four or less out of the six statements as to whether the exercise influenced learning transfer. It was worth noting that four officers (12%) responded either neutral or did not agree that the simulation was able to meet the intended training needs. These officers had an average age of 47 and had been in service for 27 years, but spent less than half their years in service in frontline roles (less than 13 years).

The positive correlation between the level of agreement towards learning and officers’ expected realism in the exercise gave critical insights into the importance of fidelity and realism towards officers’ learning. Officers who did not think that the exercise had met its expected fidelity also did not agree that the simulation had met its intended learning objectives. Correspondingly, officers who felt that the simulation had met their expected level of fidelity understood the training objectives of the lessons and felt that they had learnt from the exercise. This insight is critical in informing the importance of contextual and psychological fidelity and how it translates to the context of learning.

Incident and crisis management requires tacit knowledge and experience of officers. Purely knowing the various standard operating procedures and communication approaches is insufficient. In times of critical incidents, officers respond to situations and scenarios differently based on their prior experience and assessment of the situation. Officers with many years of service but fewer years of frontline experience might not have the prior experience of incidents with high volatility and uncertainty. However, being in service for a few decades would have already formed a solidified perception of what ground operations could be like through other areas of work, even if those perceptions were not personally experienced. Hence, their perceptions of how such situations unfold might differ from what was experienced within the scenario. A scenario that has a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity would appear disjointed from their perceived reality which then results in scenarios being less effective and transfer of learning might then be at a lower level. Hence, for officers with this profile—many years in service with few years of frontline experience—the design of scenarios needs to be carefully designed and progressively staged for such training to be effective.

LIMITATIONS

The key limitation of this study is the low number of officers in this study. Each of the groups within this study had very different operational experience and one group had significantly fewer officers than the other. More data could be collected to corroborate current findings with future groups.

Secondly, the scenarios given to officers could be further varied and controlled to better understand how levels of difficulty and uncertainty affect officers’ perceptions towards different areas of fidelity and how it contributes to their learning. This would give a more accurate representation of how the design of scenarios impacts officers’ learning in such virtual environments.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study highlighted that the SBST provided officers with simulated scenarios that allow them to engage in mental processes that closely mimic those in actual incidents. The brain ‘sees’ predictively before conscious perception (Barrett 2012) for fast sense-making and decision-making in response to external stimuli occurring during the simulation. It then determines officers’ physiological processes to approach or avoid the stimulus. Hence, officers’ attention to stimulus informs how they perceive, evaluate, and determine their behavioural options.

This study provided valuable insights into the significance of officers’ profiles and its relation with the different areas of fidelity for SBST. The findings suggest that officers’ demographics and prior work experiences influenced their perception of the scenarios and learning outcomes. Particularly, it indicated that officers who have spent a large proportion of their years in service in the frontline operations place greater importance on contextual and psychological fidelity and can appreciate simulation exercises that are highly ambiguous and uncertain. They understood the requirements of the scenario and felt that simulation allowed them to develop their skills within a safe environment. Comparatively, officers who despite many years in service but spent a smaller amount of time in frontline duties might view scenarios that are less uncertain and ambiguous as more realistic and closer to their own lived experienced. Hence, for simulation to be perceived as being effective, officers could be first exposed to small-scale simulations with a more scripted approach and lower levels of ambiguity and uncertainty, before scaling it up to highly dynamic scenarios.

Moving forward, further research into the impact of officers’ demographics in other law enforcement agencies and into the generational learning differences can contribute to the refinement of the scenario design. This, in turn, can broaden the applicability of the findings to ultimately improve the transfer of learning to real-life incident response within the law enforcement community.

As the landscape of law enforcement continues to evolve, strategic implementation of SBST with considerations of officers’ demographics and experiences will be instrumental in elevating the overall effectiveness of training and skill development within the law enforcement community.

Author Contributions

P.J.S.: Conceptualization and design of study, Data analysis, Writing of manuscript; C.O.: Design of study, Data collection and analysis, Writing of manuscript; N.P.: Conceptualization and design of study, Supervise the implementation of study, Approval of manuscript; K.H.S.: Conceptualization and design of study, Supervise the implementation of study, Review and approve the accuracy of manuscript; S.G.T.: Editing and reviewing manuscript; S.S.: Advice on the design of the study, Advice on the analysis and interpretation of data, Review of manuscript.

Funding

None declared.

REFERENCES

Author notes