No significant differences between VR-based and conventional training in operational understanding, technical skills, or system usability¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Operational understanding and technical skills (B: 3.60 vs 3.55, P=.83, r=0.049) and system usability (E: 4.24 vs 4.05, P=.29, r=0.239) did not differ significantly between modalities. → 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 · i? · causal · r1

Primary outcome domains B and E in the within-participants comparison of 20 students; Wilcoxon signed-rank tests nonsignificant after Bonferroni correction (P=.83, r=0.049 for B; P=.29, r=0.239 for E). Equivalence was not tested.

"The (B) operational understanding and technical skills (vial and shielding manipulation) domain showed comparable results across both training modalities, with mean scores of 3.60 (SD 0.52) for conventional training and 3.55 (SD 0.66) for VR-based training."

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
• Conventional training received significantly higher ratings for perceived realism and immersion than VR-based training (r=0.774) — related
• Qualitative analysis found radiation became perceptible in VR for all participants, while all reported operability differences favoring 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
• VR-based training received significantly higher ratings for learning satisfaction and self-evaluation than conventional training — related
• Review syntheses: VR/AR most often improved academic achievement and motivation, but sometimes performed no better than conventional technologies — related
• Both systems were usable with no significant differences in technical difficulties, practicality, or reading of messages
• Immersive VR simulation increased self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation more than a conventional safety manual in laboratory safety training — related
• Corrective feedback plus either GLA significantly improved students' safety behavior in VR, with no difference between re-experiencing and self-explaining — related