Concurrent Versus Terminal Feedback: It May Be Better to Wait
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feedback is an important feature of simulation-based education. This study investigated the optimal timing of feedback for technical skills learning in novices. METHOD: Thirty novice endoscopists were pretested on a colonoscopy simulator task. Participants then received feedback either during (concurrent) or after (terminal) each of their 12 practice trials. Effectiveness of training was assessed using an immediate posttest and one week later on retention and transfer tests. Measures included execution time and blinded expert assessments. RESULTS: Both groups performed similarly on the pre-, post-, and retention tests. At transfer, the terminal feedback group performed significantly better as measured by execution time, checklist, and global rating scores. The concurrent feedback group's performance decreased significantly on the transfer test as compared with the posttest and retention test. CONCLUSIONS: Not all feedback conditions seem equally effective. The use of terminal feedback resulted in better learning as demonstrated by superior performance during transfer.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For simulation training of procedural skills, terminal feedback may be superior to concurrent feedback for enhancing learning.
“for simulation training of procedural skills, terminal feedback (at the end of the task performance) may be superior to concurrent feedback (during the task performance) for enhancing learning [12].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
Cites
Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1022193728205 · Cited by 6,023 · see citing works
Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis
Schmidt, R. A. (1982) · Cited by 4,813 · see citing works
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966 · see citing works
Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.355 · Cited by 1,438 · see citing works
Feedback in Clinical Medical Education
Ende, J. (1983) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03340060055026 · Cited by 1,259 · see citing works
Xeroulis, G., Park, J., Moulton, C.-A. E., Reznick, R. K., LeBlanc, V. R., & Dubrowski, A. (2007) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2006.09.012 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Fiberoptic Intubation Using Anesthetized, Paralyzed, Apneic Patients
Cole, A. F. D., Mallon, J. S., Rolbin, S. H., et al. (1996) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-199605000-00012 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eppich, W., & Cheng, A. (2015) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000072 · Cited by 1,106 · see citing works
Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Cheng, A., Eppich, W., Grant, V., Sherbino, J., Zendejas, B., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12432 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education.
Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P. W., & Brand, P. (2015) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Feedback for learners in medical education: What is known? A scoping review.
Bing-You, R., Hayes, V., Varaklis, K., Trowbridge, R., Kemp, H., & McKelvy, D. (2017) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001578 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
- Authors
- Walsh, C. M., Ling, S. C., Wang, C. S., & Carnahan, H.
- Affiliations
- The Wilson Centre (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Carnahan, Heather
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- Supplement
- Pages
- S54-S57
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996571297
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Keywords
- feedback timing, concurrent feedback, terminal feedback, simulation-based training, colonoscopy, endoscopy training, novice learners, skill retention, skill transfer, skill acquisition
- MeSH terms
- Colonoscopy, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
