Data from: Comparison of AI-generated and human-made animated videos for medical education: experts and students preferred AI over humans

To access the full manuscript (open-access): https://revistas.um.es/edumed/article/view/677591

Title: Expert Dataset (Excel)

Description:
This dataset contains anonymized responses from an expert panel that evaluated an AI generated educational video intended for use in Problem-Based Learning (PBL) tutorials in medical education. The Excel file includes one worksheet (“Expert Responses”) with item-level entries for each respondent.

File contents (variables):

·        ID: Anonymized respondent identifier.

·        Expert group: Group membership coded as 0 = Medical Faculty, 1 = Medical Educators, 2 = Non-medical experts.

·        Expert subgroup: Disciplinary area for applicable groups (0 = Basic Sciences, 1 = Internal Sciences, 2 = Surgical Sciences, 3 = Educational Sciences, 4 = Information Technology). (Note: the Medical Educators group has no subgroups.)

·        PBL facilitation experience: 0 = Yes, 1 = No. (Note in the header indicates that only the Medical Faculty group responded to this item.)

·        Paid AI subscription: Prior paid subscription to AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini): 0 = Yes, 1 = No.

·        Video evaluation items (M1–M10): Ten Likert-type statements covering medical appropriateness, visual quality, freedom from distraction, naturalness/appropriateness of voices, perceived professional competence of characters, realism of clinical settings, suitability for the preclinical level, visual consistency, overall structure as an educational material, and potential to encourage critical thinking and discussion.

o   Scale: 5-point Likert, typically interpreted from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5).

Title: Student Dataset (Excel)

Description:
This dataset contains anonymized responses from medical students who evaluated two instructional videos based on the same scenario for use in Problem-Based Learning (PBL) tutorials: an AI-generated video and an animated video. The Excel file includes one worksheet (“Student Response”) with item-level entries per respondent. No personally identifying information is included.

File contents (variables):

·        ID: Anonymized respondent identifier.

·        Year of study: Academic year/level (2025–2026 context).

·        Gender: 0 = Female, 1 = Male, 2 = Prefer not to say.

·        Paid AI subscription: Prior paid subscription to AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini): 0 = Yes, 1 = No.

·        Belief that AI will transform healthcare: 0 = Yes, 1 = No.

Video evaluation items (paired, Likert-type):
Each construct is rated separately for the AI-generated and the Animated video.

·        I-1 (Medical appropriateness) — AI and Animated

·        I-2 (Visual quality) — AI and Animated

·        I-3 (Freedom from distraction / watchability) — AI and Animated

·        I-4 (Audio naturalness; appropriateness of voice tone) — AI and Animated

·        I-5 (Perceived professional competence of characters) — AI and Animated

·        I-6 (Realism of clinical settings) — AI and Animated

·        I-7 (Appropriateness for preclinical level) — AI and Animated

·        I-8 (Visual consistency) — AI and Animated

Scale: 5-point Likert, typically interpreted from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5).

Preference/forced-choice items:

·        I-9 — Which video was more engaging? (0 = Animated, 1 = AI-generated)

·        I-10 — Which video evoked more emotion? (0 = Animated, 1 = AI-generated)

·        I-11 — Which video would you prefer to use in PBL tutorials? (0 = Animated, 1 = AI-generated)

·        I-12 — Prior exposure to this scenario in a PBL tutorial (0 = Yes, 1 = No, 2 = I don’t remember).