The Effect of Immediate and Delayed Feedback on Knowledge and Performance Development in Athletic Therapy Students during a Simulated Cardiac Emergency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback is intended to reduce the gap between actual and expected performance. Feedback can be provided during or following a learning event. However, in uncontrolled and unpredictable learning environments (medical residencies), feedback following a learning event may be delayed or absent. Feedback timing strategies have been studied in variety of disciplines, but is lacking in the field of sports medicine. Therefore, this study examined the effectiveness of feedback timing strategies on knowledge acquisition and performance skill development of athletic therapy students using simulated cardiac emergencies. Thirty athletic therapy students were randomly assigned to an immediate feedback (IF), delayed feedback (DF), or no feedback (NF) group. Students completed a baseline performance test, received standardized instruction on cardiac emergency management and completed knowledge and performance pretests. During the intervention period, students managed nine emergency simulations. The IF group received feedback immediately following each simulation. The DF group did not receive any feedback between simulations; they received all feedback on each of the nine simulations after the ninth simulation. The NF group received all feedback on each simulation at the end of the study. Knowledge and performance posttests were administered after the last feedback session of the intervention period (acquisition), and a follow- up test was administered two weeks later (retention). Several one-way ANOVA tables were generated to compare group knowledge and performance outcome measures from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test. A Tukey’s post hoc analysis was used to examine significant interactions. The IF and DF groups performed significantly better on the knowledge posttest compared to the NF group, F(2, 27) = 5.64, p < 0.05. There were no significant differences between the igroups on the performance pretest, posttest, or follow-up tests. However, the IF and DF groups scored a higher total performance score with automated external defibrillator (AED) application compared to the NF group, F(2, 27) = 6.10, p < 0.05. The results suggest that feedback has a positive impact on learning, regardless of timing strategy. However, previous research has demonstrated that different feedback delay times may have different effects on learning. Regardless, instructors must research and wisely choose the most optimal feedback strategies to enhance learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".