Virtual reality versus conventional clinical role-play for radiographic positioning training

A students' perception study

D. Sapkaroski, M. Mundy, M.R. Dimmock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: Simulated learning environments (SLEs) are commonly utilised by educational institutions. The aim of this study was to assess if students perceptions varied relating to the effectiveness of either a virtual reality (VR) simulation or traditional clinical role-play scenario in developing radiographic hand positioning skills. Methods: A split-cohort study was performed with Year 1 Undergraduate Radiography students (n = 76). Students were randomly assigned to undertake training for radiographic hand positioning tasks using either the CETSOL VR Clinic software (Group 1) or traditional clinical role-play (Group 2). Following completion of their positioning training, students’ perceived impact of the SLE on developing practical and technical skills were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire and free text option. Results: Quantitative student perception scores indicated no significant difference between the two simulation modalities, the mean agreement scores (combined strongly agree + agree) for Groups 1 and 2 were 74.8% and 83.8%, respectively, where χ2 (4, n = 66) = 9.5, p-value = 0.394. Key themes expressed by students following a thematic analysis were “engagement with the learning environment, positioning practice and comparability to clinical practice. Conclusion: The perceptions of novice students in training for radiographic hand positioning tasks, using either a VR SLE or clinical role-play scenario, did not differ. There was a strong similarity in common themes, however, a key point of difference identified was the benefit of repetition afforded by the VR simulation, in contrast to the need for more time using traditional role-play in a constrained laboratory setting. Implications for practice: The lack of difference in student perceptions between VR and clinical role-play training, could offer a different approach to clinical training which is easily accessible and allows users to correct mistakes at their own pace.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages6
JournalRadiography
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 5 Sep 2019

Keywords

  • Radiographic positioning
  • Role-play
  • Simulation
  • Virtual reality

Cite this

@article{8644cdb102eb4f52800af55d5075af7d,
title = "Virtual reality versus conventional clinical role-play for radiographic positioning training: A students' perception study",
abstract = "Introduction: Simulated learning environments (SLEs) are commonly utilised by educational institutions. The aim of this study was to assess if students perceptions varied relating to the effectiveness of either a virtual reality (VR) simulation or traditional clinical role-play scenario in developing radiographic hand positioning skills. Methods: A split-cohort study was performed with Year 1 Undergraduate Radiography students (n = 76). Students were randomly assigned to undertake training for radiographic hand positioning tasks using either the CETSOL VR Clinic software (Group 1) or traditional clinical role-play (Group 2). Following completion of their positioning training, students’ perceived impact of the SLE on developing practical and technical skills were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire and free text option. Results: Quantitative student perception scores indicated no significant difference between the two simulation modalities, the mean agreement scores (combined strongly agree + agree) for Groups 1 and 2 were 74.8{\%} and 83.8{\%}, respectively, where χ2 (4, n = 66) = 9.5, p-value = 0.394. Key themes expressed by students following a thematic analysis were “engagement with the learning environment, positioning practice and comparability to clinical practice. Conclusion: The perceptions of novice students in training for radiographic hand positioning tasks, using either a VR SLE or clinical role-play scenario, did not differ. There was a strong similarity in common themes, however, a key point of difference identified was the benefit of repetition afforded by the VR simulation, in contrast to the need for more time using traditional role-play in a constrained laboratory setting. Implications for practice: The lack of difference in student perceptions between VR and clinical role-play training, could offer a different approach to clinical training which is easily accessible and allows users to correct mistakes at their own pace.",
keywords = "Radiographic positioning, Role-play, Simulation, Virtual reality",
author = "D. Sapkaroski and M. Mundy and M.R. Dimmock",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.radi.2019.08.001",
language = "English",
journal = "Radiography",
issn = "1078-8174",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders",

}

Virtual reality versus conventional clinical role-play for radiographic positioning training : A students' perception study. / Sapkaroski, D.; Mundy, M.; Dimmock, M.R.

In: Radiography, 05.09.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Virtual reality versus conventional clinical role-play for radiographic positioning training

T2 - A students' perception study

AU - Sapkaroski, D.

AU - Mundy, M.

AU - Dimmock, M.R.

PY - 2019/9/5

Y1 - 2019/9/5

N2 - Introduction: Simulated learning environments (SLEs) are commonly utilised by educational institutions. The aim of this study was to assess if students perceptions varied relating to the effectiveness of either a virtual reality (VR) simulation or traditional clinical role-play scenario in developing radiographic hand positioning skills. Methods: A split-cohort study was performed with Year 1 Undergraduate Radiography students (n = 76). Students were randomly assigned to undertake training for radiographic hand positioning tasks using either the CETSOL VR Clinic software (Group 1) or traditional clinical role-play (Group 2). Following completion of their positioning training, students’ perceived impact of the SLE on developing practical and technical skills were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire and free text option. Results: Quantitative student perception scores indicated no significant difference between the two simulation modalities, the mean agreement scores (combined strongly agree + agree) for Groups 1 and 2 were 74.8% and 83.8%, respectively, where χ2 (4, n = 66) = 9.5, p-value = 0.394. Key themes expressed by students following a thematic analysis were “engagement with the learning environment, positioning practice and comparability to clinical practice. Conclusion: The perceptions of novice students in training for radiographic hand positioning tasks, using either a VR SLE or clinical role-play scenario, did not differ. There was a strong similarity in common themes, however, a key point of difference identified was the benefit of repetition afforded by the VR simulation, in contrast to the need for more time using traditional role-play in a constrained laboratory setting. Implications for practice: The lack of difference in student perceptions between VR and clinical role-play training, could offer a different approach to clinical training which is easily accessible and allows users to correct mistakes at their own pace.

AB - Introduction: Simulated learning environments (SLEs) are commonly utilised by educational institutions. The aim of this study was to assess if students perceptions varied relating to the effectiveness of either a virtual reality (VR) simulation or traditional clinical role-play scenario in developing radiographic hand positioning skills. Methods: A split-cohort study was performed with Year 1 Undergraduate Radiography students (n = 76). Students were randomly assigned to undertake training for radiographic hand positioning tasks using either the CETSOL VR Clinic software (Group 1) or traditional clinical role-play (Group 2). Following completion of their positioning training, students’ perceived impact of the SLE on developing practical and technical skills were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire and free text option. Results: Quantitative student perception scores indicated no significant difference between the two simulation modalities, the mean agreement scores (combined strongly agree + agree) for Groups 1 and 2 were 74.8% and 83.8%, respectively, where χ2 (4, n = 66) = 9.5, p-value = 0.394. Key themes expressed by students following a thematic analysis were “engagement with the learning environment, positioning practice and comparability to clinical practice. Conclusion: The perceptions of novice students in training for radiographic hand positioning tasks, using either a VR SLE or clinical role-play scenario, did not differ. There was a strong similarity in common themes, however, a key point of difference identified was the benefit of repetition afforded by the VR simulation, in contrast to the need for more time using traditional role-play in a constrained laboratory setting. Implications for practice: The lack of difference in student perceptions between VR and clinical role-play training, could offer a different approach to clinical training which is easily accessible and allows users to correct mistakes at their own pace.

KW - Radiographic positioning

KW - Role-play

KW - Simulation

KW - Virtual reality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071670626&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radi.2019.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.radi.2019.08.001

M3 - Article

JO - Radiography

JF - Radiography

SN - 1078-8174

ER -