Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research
Date Submitted: May 14, 2026
Date Accepted: Sep 15, 2026
Supplementing the Interference Preservation Hypothesis with Motivational Interviewing–Based Feedback: A Formative Case Study of a Rural Military Veteran with Moral Injury
ABSTRACT
Background:
Veterans experiencing moral injury (i.e., having witnessed or done something during military service that conflicts with one’s value system) may encounter challenges that affect engagement and learning in online contexts.
Objective:
This formative case study examined the feasibility of integrating motivational interviewing (MI)-based delayed feedback, a key tenet of the interference preservation hypothesis, into an online program focused on machine learning instruction for a veteran with self-reported severe moral injury.
Methods:
One veteran completed a moral injury assessment and 17 training modules with various checkpoint assessments, followed by a machine learning module incorporating a pretest, MI-based delayed feedback, and posttest.
Results:
The participant completed all instructional and assessment components. Checkpoint scores ranged from 66.7% to 100%, with 7 of 10 scores exhibiting a perfect score. Machine learning performance increased from 90% at pretest to 100% at posttest following MI-based delayed feedback.
Conclusions:
These findings demonstrate the feasibility of integrating MI-based delayed feedback within an online data science instruction program and provides formative evidence supporting evaluation in larger samples.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.