Formative participants preferred post-session debriefing over in-session interruption, with timing treated as contingent on error severity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-17 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Participants preferred feedback after the consultation to preserve clinical flow, while allowing immediate warnings for severe or safety-critical errors. → Zhiqi Gao 2026

Evidence¶

Zhiqi Gao 2026¶

Zhiqi Gao, Huarui Luo, Guo Zhu, Bingquan Zhang, Dongyijie Primo Pan, Yizhan Feng, Jiahuan Pei, Jie Li, Benyou Wang. (2026). MedEasy: Designing AI Standardized Patients for Clinical Consultation Training. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17512 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.17512

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Formative interview finding on feedback timing: a participant stated "Do not interrupt the treatment process; tell me after I have finished." Another recalled immediate correction could help repair errors but increased pressure and affected subsequent performance.

"Do not interrupt the treatment process; tell me after I have finished."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Time and Continuity — outcome: instruction changes it

The review reports that embedded analytics, timely feedback, and structured reflection strengthen conceptual consolidation and learning gains — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
Learners who could decide after a trial whether to receive knowledge of results (Self-After, Self-Both) were more accurate on a 24-h motor retention test than learners who decided before the trial (Self-Before) and than their yoked counterparts. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
A formative study with 12 clinical-year medical students produced four design-oriented themes for AI-SP consultation practice — related
Expert evaluation found the virtual patient realistic and immediate ACT feedback increased therapists' awareness of intervention choices — related
In an evaluative study, medical learners interpreted MedEasy as a connected consultation environment and used its components together to judge case coherence — related
Learners valued repeatable practice and recorded review in MedEasy while questioning missing actions and feedback criteria — related
Formative participants found human SP practice valuable for embodied cues but episodic and unevenly connected to individualized feedback — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`feedback-timing-post-session-debrief-preference`
`title`	`Formative participants preferred post-session debriefing over in-session interruption, with timing treated as contingent on error severity`
`description`	`Formative participants preferred post-session debriefing over in-session interruption, with timing treated as contingent on error severity`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-17`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-11`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `zhiqi-gao-2026`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.