Conventional training received significantly higher ratings for perceived realism and immersion than VR-based training (r=0.774)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Students rated perceived realism and immersion higher after conventional training (mean 4.44, SD 0.52) than VR-based training (mean 3.48, SD 0.70), r=0.774, P<.001. → Kakimoto Akihiro 2026

Evidence¶

Kakimoto Akihiro 2026¶

Kakimoto Akihiro, Fujise Daisuke, Watanabe Shota, Otaka Yutaka, Minemoto Sakura, Yasumatsu Ayaka, Hasegawa Shin. (2026). Development and Educational Evaluation of a Radiation Visualization System in a Virtual Reality Training Module for Radiopharmaceutical Administration: Mixed Methods Study of Students’ Learning Experiences. JMIR Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.2196/104397

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Primary outcome domain C in the within-participants comparison of 20 students; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, r=0.774, P<.001. Secondary item C2 (sense of presence similar to an actual working environment) was 4.75 vs 3.20 (r=0.821).

"In the (C) perceived realism and immersion domain, conventional training was rated higher (mean 4.44, SD 0.52) than VR-based training (mean 3.48, SD 0.70)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Immersive technologies such as virtual reality should reinforce, not substitute, the original educational action — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• VR-based training received significantly higher ratings for learning satisfaction and self-evaluation than conventional training — related
• VR-based training with radiation field visualization received significantly higher ratings for radiation understanding and visualization than conventional training (r=0.878) — related
• VR-based training received significantly higher ratings for medical safety awareness and radiation protection than conventional training (r=0.856) — related
• No significant differences between VR-based and conventional training in operational understanding, technical skills, or system usability — related
• Qualitative analysis found radiation became perceptible in VR for all participants, while all reported operability differences favoring conventional training — related
• Increased perceptual fidelity fails to reliably improve serious game learning outcomes (the fidelity fallacy) — related
• Immersive media environments enable higher visual and behavioral realism of pedagogical agents than non-immersive formats — reports the opposite
• Immersive technologies are rarely adopted in robotics GBL/gamification but studies using them report heightened engagement, improved spatial reasoning, and enhanced perceived realism — reports the opposite
• Students trained with MPathic-VR report significantly more positive attitudes toward their learning experience than computer-based learning students — related
• Immersive VR simulation increased self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation more than a conventional safety manual in laboratory safety training — reports the opposite
• Second-year medical students improve their intercultural and interprofessional communication performance between first and second run-throughs of MPathic-VR scenarios — related
• Corrective feedback plus either GLA significantly improved students' safety behavior in VR, with no difference between re-experiencing and self-explaining — related
• Measures of presence, enjoyment, entitativity, and realism increased over a 10-week networked-VR course, suggesting XRCL advantages may grow as participants adapt — reports the opposite