Question skills, types of details, and the assessment of information from Avatars in different number of interviews among different combinations of two interventions.
HT
HT: Participants who built hypotheses before each interview. Feedback: Participants who received feedback on outcome and question types. Panels (A): The means of recommended questions (B) the means of non-recommended questions, and (C) the mean proportions of recommended questions presented by participants in different number of interviews. Panels (D) The means of relevant details, (E) neutral details, and (F) wrong details presented by participants in different number of interviews. Panels (G) The averaged degree of reliability (H) contradictoriness, and (I) suggestibility of information from avatars assessed by participants in different number of interviews.To look at the effects of the HT and Feedback interventions, respectively, in each interview, we combined pairs of experimental conditions and conducted planned comparisons between HT conditions (i.e., the combination of HT and HT+Feedback conditions) and Non-HT conditions as well as between the Feedback conditions (i.e., the combination of Feedback and HT+Feedback conditions) and Non-feedback conditions. Compared to Non-feedback conditions, participants in Feedback conditions presented significantly more recommended questions during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th interviews, while fewer non-recommended questions in all interviews except the first one. Combined, Feedback conditions increased the proportion of presented recommended questions during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th interviews, indicating that receiving feedback improved the questioning skills of participants over time. Compared to Non-HT conditions, receiving HT intervention made participants present fewer recommended questions during the 4th and 5th interviews (