A theoretical article, citing two simulation studies, reports that novice clinical learners overestimated their performance and that their confidence exceeded their accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In virtual patient simulations, the vast majority of first-year medical students overestimated their own performance, with bias more pronounced for the cognitively demanding subtask. → Tsim 2026 q2 i? In high-fidelity simulations, student self-reported confidence exceeded faculty-rated diagnostic accuracy, and team discussion narrowed but did not close the gap. → Tsim 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Tsim 2026¶

Tsim, F., Gutoreva, A., Weiss, A., & Dubosh, N. (2026). AI as Teammate: Rethinking Task Distribution in Medical Training. Correspondence: [email protected]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28373 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.28373

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The article reports, citing Cleary et al. (2019), a study of 157 first-year medical students in virtual patient simulations across history-taking and physical examination subtasks; this conceptual article (not an empirical review) attributes this calibration bias pattern to that study, which was not read directly.

"95–98% of students overestimated their own performance, producing a systematic calibration bias that was more pronounced for the cognitively demanding subtask."

Tsim 2026 (2)¶

Tsim, F., Gutoreva, A., Weiss, A., & Dubosh, N. (2026). AI as Teammate: Rethinking Task Distribution in Medical Training. Correspondence: [email protected]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28373. doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.28373

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

The article reports, citing Garbayo et al. (2023), a replication in high-fidelity patient simulations with 80 teams; this conceptual article (not an empirical review) attributes these accuracy-confidence figures to that study and notes team discussion narrowed but did not close the gap.

"faculty-rated diagnostic accuracy ranged from 23–74%, while student self-reported confidence ranged from 71–86%."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Self Assessment Accuracy Is Low Without Training — a broader claim this one bears on
• The majority of students lacked confidence in their experimental results because they could not solicit the behaviors or obtained unexpected results — related
• Verbalized self-reported confidence is overconfident in the mid-confidence range, while consistency-based confidence shows good average calibration but localized failure regions — related
• In one reviewed study, Anatomage virtual dissection increased medical student engagement by 34% over cadaver-based practice, constrained by equipment costs exceeding $72,000 per station — related
• Review-attributed evidence: user confidence in model answers exceeds model internal confidence, and explanation design narrows the gap — related
• In one 2×2 experiment with 120 undergraduates, an Assessment-Performance Calibration Activity (APCA) gave the most accurate self-assessment and least overconfidence, and adding a feedback-literacy script did not improve calibration further — related
• Poor mathematics performers are less intrinsically motivated, less metacognitively accurate, and overestimate their performances more often than well-performing peers in all grades — related
• Most preservice teachers were overconfident in the completeness of their fraction comparison explanations at both first draft and revision — related
• The tribute reports students tend to overestimate their sport performance, and four-level model instruction may improve calibration accuracy — related
• AI support can improve task performance while weakening users' metacognitive accuracy and leaving their own reasoning unimproved — related
• Self-assessment accuracy in PBL depends on achievement level: low achievers graded generously, high achievers accurately — related
• Email-detection confidence judgments show good calibration but poor resolution, with aggregate overconfidence of 18% — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Hard-easy effect: students are more accurate but underconfident on easy items and less accurate but overconfident on difficult items — related
• Secondary students tend to overestimate their text comprehension, though monitoring is relatively accurate in this sample — related