Open AccessNo difference in learning outcomes and usability between using controllers and hand tracking during a virtual reality endotracheal intubation training for medical students in Thailand
Author(s) -
Chaowanan Khundam,
Naparat Sukkriang,
Frédéric Noël
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of educational evaluation for health professions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.397
H-Index - 9
ISSN - 1975-5937
DOI - 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.22
Subject(s) - usability , virtual reality , test (biology) , endotracheal intubation , modalities , intubation , system usability scale , tracking (education) , virtual training , significant difference , medical education , medicine , computer science , physical therapy , multimedia , psychology , human–computer interaction , surgery , heuristic evaluation , paleontology , social science , pedagogy , sociology , biology
Purpose We developed a virtual reality (VR) endotracheal intubation training that applied 2 interaction modalities (hand-tracking or controllers). It aimed to investigate the differences in usability 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.