Automated versus nonautomated feedback in competency-based simulation shows a negligible, non-significant pooled difference¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing automated with nonautomated feedback found a negligible pooled effect (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.52, P = 0.62) favoring automated feedback. → Vermylen JH 2026

Evidence¶

Vermylen JH 2026¶

Vermylen JH, Cohen ER, Cook DA, McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Arnold J, Ballard H, Bayoumi M, Beestrum M, Bremner R, Crawford S, Einstein N, Mannarino C, Misra A, Tomita TM, Waldron H, Yanko F, Kessler DO. (2026). Competency-Based Simulation Training for Procedural Skills: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Simulation in Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000895

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of 7 studies (15%) comparing competency-based simulations with automated versus nonautomated feedback, using each study's best outcome. Inconsistency was high (I2 = 79%, effect sizes −1.38 to 1.07); no sensitivity analysis was conducted given the small number of studies.

"Figure 4 shows the meta-analysis for the best outcome for the automated feedback group compared with the nonautomated feedback group with a pooled SMD of 0.11 (95% CI = −0.31 to 0.52, P = 0.62), a negligible effect favoring automated feedback"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Self-regulated versus instructor-guided feedback in competency-based simulation shows a negligible, non-significant pooled difference — related
• Competency-based simulation training outperforms noncompetency-based simulation for procedural skill outcomes in health professionals (moderate pooled effect) — related