-
No difference in learning outcomes and usability between using controllers and hand tracking during a virtual reality endotracheal intubation training for medical students in Thailand
-
Chaowanan Khundam
 , Naparat Sukkriang, Frédéric Noël
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:22. Published online August 18, 2021
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.22
-
-
5,957
View
-
360
Download
-
8
Web of Science
-
8
Crossref
-
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material
- Purpose
We developed a virtual reality (VR) endotracheal intubation training that applied 2 interaction modalities (hand-tracking or controllersIt aimed to investigatedthe differences of usuability between using hand tracking and controllers during the VR intervention for intubation training for medical students from February 2021 to March 2021 in Thailand.
Methods
Forty-five participants were divided into 3 groups: video only, video with VR controller training, and video with VR hand tracking training. Pre-test, post-test, and practice scores were used to assess learning outcomes. The System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ) questionnaires were used to evaluate the differences between the VR groups. The sample comprised 45 medical students (undergraduate) who were taking part in clinical training at Walailak University in Thailand.
Results
The overall learning outcomes of both VR groups were better than those of the video group. The post-test scores (P=0.581) and practice scores (P=0.168) of both VR groups were not significantly different. Similarly, no significant between-group differences were found in the SUS scores (P=0.588) or in any aspects of the USEQ scores.
Conclusion
VR enhanced medical training. Interactions using hand tracking or controllers were not significantly different in terms of the outcomes measured in this study. The results and interviews provided a better understanding of support learning and training, which will be further improved and developed to create a self-learning VR medical training system in the future.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Do Cone Beam CT Picture Archiving and Communication Systems Viewer Interfaces Meet the Expectations of Dental Professionals From a Usability Perspective?
Yaren Dogan, Yigit Sirin
Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Virtual reality and augmented reality in medical education: an umbrella review
Talia Tene, Diego Fabián Vique López, Paulina Elizabeth Valverde Aguirre, Luz María Orna Puente, Cristian Vacacela Gomez
Frontiers in Digital Health.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Development of neonatal Apgar scoring training program utilizing contactless hand tracking in immersive virtual reality
Sun-Yi Yang, Yun-Hee Oh
Nurse Education Today.2024; 140: 106294. CrossRef - Influence of Hand Tracking in Immersive Virtual Reality for Memory Assessment
José Varela-Aldás, Jorge Buele, Irene López, Guillermo Palacios-Navarro
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(5): 4609. CrossRef - AR/VR Teaching-Learning Experiences in Higher Education Institutions (HEI): A Systematic Literature Review
Belen Bermejo, Carlos Juiz, David Cortes, Jeroen Oskam, Teemu Moilanen, Jouko Loijas, Praneschen Govender, Jennifer Hussey, Alexander Lennart Schmidt, Ralf Burbach, Daniel King, Colin O'Connor, Davin Dunlea
Informatics.2023; 10(2): 45. CrossRef - Application and challenges of a metaverse in medicine
Yingshu Wang, Congcong Li, Lai Qu, Hongfei Cai, Yingying Ge
Frontiers in Robotics and AI.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Application of computer-based testing in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination, the emergence of the metaverse in medical education, journal metrics and statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2022; 19: 2. CrossRef - Virtual Simulation in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review of Recent Practice
Qingming Wu, Yubin Wang, Lili Lu, Yong Chen, Hui Long, Jun Wang
Frontiers in Medicine.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
|
KHPLEI
