Evaluating the constructiveness and professional tone of AI-generated corrective feedback for medical learners

Faculty feedback is vital for the professional growth of learners. Barriers such as faculty’s confidence in their feedback skills and time limitations may inhibit the provision of quality feedback. Generative large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have the potential to support faculty in providing high-quality corrective feedback by producing effective narrative feedback scripts for faculty to reference. This study evaluates the constructiveness and professional tone of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated corrective feedback scripts, compared with educator-authored scripts, across standardized learner deficiency scenarios. Six pediatric medical education leaders blindly rated two narrative feedback scripts for eighteen learner deficiency scenarios; one script for each scenario was authored by educators, the other script was generated by ChatGPT without editing. The raters scored each script in four domains (behavior-centric, balanced between positive and negative, non-judgmental, and focused) using a 3-point scale (0–2), where 0 = No, 1 = Somewhat, 2 = Yes. The median scores of the educator authored scripts and the ChatGPT-generated scripts were compared by domain. An overall median score was also generated for the educator authored scripts and the ChatGPT-generated. Combining all four measured domains, ChatGPT-generated scripts received higher combined median scores, had increased odds of receiving higher domain scores than educator authored scripts, and were preferred by raters for 78% of the scenarios. AI-generated feedback scripts were rated more favorably for constructiveness and professional tone across four assessed domains suggesting that they may have potential as an adjunct to faculty feedback, however, these findings are limited to communication characteristics and do not address accuracy, educational impact, or clinical applicability. AI may serve as a supportive drafting tool, but further study is needed before conclusions about real-world utility can be made.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Education
Published
2026-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10547-6
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the constructiveness and professional tone of AI-generated corrective feedback for medical learners

Leslie Reilly, Emma Simon, Margaret Huntwork, Zhide Fang et al.
BMC Medical Education
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Evaluating the constructiveness and professional tone of AI-generated corrective feedback for medical learners

Leslie Reilly, Emma Simon, Margaret Huntwork, Zhide Fang, Kelly Gajewski, Bonnie Desselle, Amy Creel, Christy Mumphrey, George Hescock, Amy Prudhomme, Shubho Sarkar, Jessica Patrick Esteve
article en

Abstract

Faculty feedback is vital for the professional growth of learners. Barriers such as faculty’s confidence in their feedback skills and time limitations may inhibit the provision of quality feedback. Generative large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have the potential to support faculty in providing high-quality corrective feedback by producing effective narrative feedback scripts for faculty to reference. This study evaluates the constructiveness and professional tone of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated corrective feedback scripts, compared with educator-authored scripts, across standardized learner deficiency scenarios. Six pediatric medical education leaders blindly rated two narrative feedback scripts for eighteen learner deficiency scenarios; one script for each scenario was authored by educators, the other script was generated by ChatGPT without editing. The raters scored each script in four domains (behavior-centric, balanced between positive and negative, non-judgmental, and focused) using a 3-point scale (0–2), where 0 = No, 1 = Somewhat, 2 = Yes. The median scores of the educator authored scripts and the ChatGPT-generated scripts were compared by domain. An overall median score was also generated for the educator authored scripts and the ChatGPT-generated. Combining all four measured domains, ChatGPT-generated scripts received higher combined median scores, had increased odds of receiving higher domain scores than educator authored scripts, and were preferred by raters for 78% of the scenarios. AI-generated feedback scripts were rated more favorably for constructiveness and professional tone across four assessed domains suggesting that they may have potential as an adjunct to faculty feedback, however, these findings are limited to communication characteristics and do not address accuracy, educational impact, or clinical applicability. AI may serve as a supportive drafting tool, but further study is needed before conclusions about real-world utility can be made.

BMC Medical Education
Tulane University (US), Children's Hospital of New Orleans (US), Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.