Qualitative analysis found predominantly positive perceptions of iVR, with real-time feedback the most valued element and lack of realism the main concern¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-28 (automated, 3 of 3 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Trinidad-Fernández 2026 (2): no comparison group (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-28)

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Positive aspects of the iVR experience (86.5% of coded responses) outweighed negative aspects (13.5%), with 'curious and original' most frequent. → Trinidad-Fernández 2026 q2 i? Feedback was the most cited beneficial element (54.5%), with real-time feedback the largest subcategory (30.2%). → Trinidad-Fernández 2026 (2) q2 i? 70.5% of responses indicated iVR exceeded expectations; the most repeated concern (20.5%) was that iVR was not realistic enough. → Trinidad-Fernández 2026 (3)

Evidence¶

Trinidad-Fernández 2026¶

Trinidad-Fernández, M., Bossavit, B., Fuentes-Abolafio, I. J., García-Conejo, C., Mayorga-Vega, D., Díaz-Balboa, E., & Cuesta-Vargas, A. (2026). Immersive virtual reality–based manual therapy training: a mixed-methods trial. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10620-3

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Inductive qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses from the experimental group (analyzed in Atlas.ti) found "positive aspects (86.5%) outweighed negative aspects (13.5%)", with 'curious and original' (45.9%) most frequent.

"the main categories were defined as positive and negative aspects, where positive aspects (86.5%) outweighed negative aspects (13.5%)"

Trinidad-Fernández 2026 (2)¶

Trinidad-Fernández, M., Bossavit, B., Fuentes-Abolafio, I. J., García-Conejo, C., Mayorga-Vega, D., Díaz-Balboa, E., & Cuesta-Vargas, A. (2026). Immersive virtual reality–based manual therapy training: a mixed-methods trial. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10620-3

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Content analysis of the second open question showed "feedback (54.5%), learning process (24.2%), and iVR-specific features (6.0%)", with real-time feedback (30.2%) the most mentioned subcategory.

"The beneficial characteristics were grouped into three categories: feedback (54.5%), learning process (24.2%), and iVR-specific features (6.0%)"

Trinidad-Fernández 2026 (3)¶

Trinidad-Fernández, M., Bossavit, B., Fuentes-Abolafio, I. J., García-Conejo, C., Mayorga-Vega, D., Díaz-Balboa, E., & Cuesta-Vargas, A. (2026). Immersive virtual reality–based manual therapy training: a mixed-methods trial. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10620-3

q2 · i? · causal · r1

For the third open question, "Most of the responses (70.5%) indicated that iVR exceeded expectations", while the most repeated concern (20.5%) was that iVR was not realistic enough.

"Most of the responses (70.5%) indicated that iVR exceeded expectations"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Undergraduate physiotherapy students who used iVR alongside traditional teaching scored higher on overall manual therapy performance one week later — related
• Students learning with iVR reported higher motivation but the control group felt they retained and understood concepts better — related
• GPT4-coded sentiment of students' open-ended general feedback about the intervention was overwhelmingly positive — related
• Students who perceived the class performance level as higher reported lower situational self-concept in the IVR classroom — related