Traditional teaching was rated easier, more efficient, and clearer, while iVR was rated more inventive and leading-edge¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 On the UEQ-S, the traditional methodology was perceived as significantly easier (d = 0.57), more efficient (d = 0.73), and clearer (d = 0.84) than the iVR methodology. → Trinidad-Fernández 2026 q3 i3 The iVR methodology was significantly better described as inventive (d = 0.88) and leading-edge (d = 0.91). → Trinidad-Fernández 2026 (2)

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

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

User experience questionnaire (UEQ-S) results from the cluster-randomized trial showed the control group favored traditional teaching on pragmatic quality: "the traditional methodology was significantly perceived as easier (p = .015, d = 0.57), more efficient (p = .049, d = 0.73), and clearer (p = .043, d = 0.84)".

"the traditional methodology was significantly perceived as easier (p = .015, d = 0.57), more efficient (p = .049, d = 0.73), and clearer (p = .043, d = 0.84) than the innovative methodology"

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

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

On the hedonic quality dimension of the UEQ-S, the iVR methodology scored higher: "the latter was better described as inventive (p < .001, d = 0.88) and leading-edge (p < .001, d = 0.91)".

"the latter was better described as inventive (p < .001, d = 0.88) and leading-edge (p < .001, d = 0.91)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students learning with iVR reported higher motivation but the control group felt they retained and understood concepts better — related
• UEQ-S user-experience ratings were positive across tasks except one hedonic item on Task 1, with pragmatic qualities rated higher than hedonic — related
• A qualitative study with 14 students found very positive perceived task-difficulty and user-experience assessments for the Nemo+nev environment — related