VR's score advantage over traditional methods (SMD = 0.81) does not hold against other 2D digital methods (SMD = 0.35, non-significant)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Subgroup analysis shows significant improvement when VR is compared with traditional interventions (SMD = 0.81, p = 0.02) but no significant advantage over other 2D digital methods (SMD = 0.35, p = 0.25). → Zhao Jingjie 2020

Evidence¶

Zhao Jingjie 2020¶

Zhao Jingjie, Xu Xinliang, Jiang Hualin, Ding Yi. (2020). The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-1994-z

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis of the 15 trials by comparator type, reported in Table 2. The review reports the VR-versus-digital contrast as non-significant and the VR-versus-traditional contrast as significant with "SMD = 0.81; 95% CI 0.15–1.47, p = 0.02".

"test scores of the VR group was not significantly better than using other 2D digital methods (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI -0.25–0.95, p = 0.25), while there was a significant improvement when compared with the traditional intervention group (SMD = 0.81; 95% CI 0.15–1.47, p = 0.02)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• VR-based anatomy teaching moderately improves learners' examination scores compared with traditional or 2D digital methods — a broader claim this one bears on
• Immersion principle: people do not necessarily learn better in 3D immersive virtual reality than with a corresponding 2D desktop presentation (d = -0.10 across 9 tests) — related
• VR improves motivation and performance of civil engineering students in a concrete structures course compared with traditional 2D drawings — reports the opposite