Tests AI feedback on motivational interviewing skills, suggesting improved student performance.
Background/Objectives: We analyzed 6555 written motivational interviewing (MI) skill attempts from 437 second-year dental students to (a) construct an inductive taxonomy of skill-enactment errors, (b) test whether error prevalence decreased after instruction, and (c) determine whether formative-error profiles predicted summative performance. Methods: We used a mixed-methods design. Students responded to patient prompts using specific MI skills (open-ended questions, affirmations, and reflections; 4 per skill) after brief instruction (T1) and during a midterm examination (T2; 3 items). Claude Artificial Intelligence (AI) performed initial coding using a qualitative constant-comparison protocol; the code registry reached saturation at n = 200. Five independent human coders validated the AI-generated codes. Results: Claude AI coded MI skill attempts with high agreement with the gold standard (linearly weighted kappa = 0.93). The two most prevalent (of seven derived) errors at T1 were the fixing reflex (advising or correcting the patient; 79%) and responding to or eliciting sustain talk (75%). All error types decreased significantly by T2 (ps < 0.001). Structural errors (e.g., wrong form) fell below 8%, whereas the fixing reflex (16%) and sustain-talk responding (52%) proved more durable. Latent profile analysis identified three groups: Attuned (64%; hallmark: successful enactment), Misaligned (17%; hallmark: fixing reflex), and Unanchored (18%; hallmark: generic responding). Misaligned students scored significantly lower at T2; Unanchored students matched the Attuned group. Conclusions: Structural errors yield to standard teaching, whereas the fixing reflex and sustain-talk responding require deliberate practice focused on subcomponents of affirming and reflecting. AI made it possible to provide individualized, criterion-referenced feedback to 437 students and to systematically code nearly 7000 responses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heyman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: