VR instruction shows no statistically significant advantage for nursing students' critical thinking (SMD = 0.79, p = 0.07)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Meta-analysis of three RCTs found no significant difference in critical thinking improvement between VR and control teaching (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.46], p = 0.07). → Liu Kai 2023

Evidence¶

Liu Kai 2023¶

Liu Kai, Zhang Weiwei, Li Wei, Wang Ting, Zheng Yanxue. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04662-x

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials of VR for critical thinking; heterogeneity was high (P < 0.001, I2 = 93%). The pooled "SMD = 0.79" was not statistically significant (p = 0.07) and the confidence interval crossed zero.

"The combined results showed no significant difference in the improvement of satisfaction in nursing education with VR technology compared to the control teaching modality (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.46], p = 0.07, Fig. 8)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Critical Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• PBL shows significant advantages in critical thinking compared with traditional education or team-based learning in nursing and clinical student populations — related
• VR instruction raises nursing students' academic satisfaction more than control teaching modalities (SMD = 1.14) — related
• VR instruction shows a statistically significant difference in nursing students' practical skills versus traditional methods, though the pooled estimate is small (SMD = 0.15) — related
• VR instruction improves nursing students' theoretical knowledge more than traditional teaching methods (SMD = 0.97) — related