VR-based training received significantly higher ratings for learning satisfaction and self-evaluation than conventional training¶

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? Learning satisfaction (F) and self-evaluation (G) were rated significantly higher after VR-based training (F: 4.52 vs 3.88; G: 4.48 vs 3.81), both P<.001 with large effect sizes. → 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 F and G in the within-participants comparison of 20 students; Wilcoxon signed-rank tests P<.001 with effect sizes r=0.835 (F) and r=0.811 (G). Secondary items F1, F2, G1, and G4 were individually significant at the adjusted threshold.

"The (F) learning satisfaction domain yielded mean scores of 3.88 (SD 0.47) for conventional training and 4.52 (SD 0.46) for VR-based training, while (G) self-evaluation domain yielded mean scores of 3.81 (SD 0.64) for conventional training and 4.48 (SD 0.44) for VR-based training"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Conventional training received significantly higher ratings for perceived realism and immersion than VR-based training (r=0.774) — 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
• No significant differences between VR-based and conventional training in operational understanding, technical skills, or system usability — related
• AIfred users report higher perceived learning support, innovation, satisfaction, and cognitive demand, with no difference in perceived productivity — related
• VR sickness in the system is minimal overall (SSQ total 12.88), with nausea lowest and oculomotor symptoms most significant — related
• Students trained with MPathic-VR report significantly more positive attitudes toward their learning experience than computer-based learning students — related
• Second-year medical students improve their intercultural and interprofessional communication performance between first and second run-throughs of MPathic-VR scenarios — related