Learners valued repeatable practice and recorded review in MedEasy while questioning missing actions and feedback criteria¶

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¶

q2 i? Evaluative participants valued repeatable practice and recorded review but questioned missing actions and feedback criteria. → 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

In the evaluative user study with 12 clinical-year medical students completing two counterbalanced cases, interview analysis found participants "valued repeatable practice and recorded review, while questioning missing actions and feedback criteria."

"They valued repeatable practice and recorded review, while questioning missing actions and feedback criteria."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A formative study with 12 clinical-year medical students produced four design-oriented themes for AI-SP consultation practice — related
• In an evaluative study, medical learners interpreted MedEasy as a connected consultation environment and used its components together to judge case coherence — related
• Formative participants found human SP practice valuable for embodied cues but episodic and unevenly connected to individualized feedback — related
• Feedback that answers three questions (Where am I going? How am I doing? Where to next?) improves learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Formative participants preferred post-session debriefing over in-session interruption, with timing treated as contingent on error severity — related