ABSTRACT
AIM: The purpose of this article was to evaluate the ability of an interactive virtual reality (VR) platform guided by standards of best practice to provide an effective immersive learning environment. We specifically evaluated usability of the platform and learners' perceptions of the experience. BACKGROUND: A variety of strategies are needed to train a highly competent nursing workforce. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative cross-sectional study to evaluate the VR experience using the System Usability Scale (SUS)® and the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified (SET-M). RESULTS: Post-simulation evaluations were completed by 127 prelicensure and 28 advanced practice students. On the SUS scale, students found the overall VR system easy to navigate, and on the SET-M, they rated the VR experience positively. CONCLUSION: Immersive technology such as VR with a defined curriculum and facilitated debriefing can be valuable for student learning and may ultimately effect patient care. [J Nurs Educ. 2023;62(6):364-373.].
Subject(s)
Education, Nursing , Virtual Reality , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Learning , Computer SimulationABSTRACT
Background Simulation education is needed to train a highly competent nursing workforce. In-person simulation requires many resources, such as faculty, space, and time, that can negatively affect its feasibility. These barriers have prompted educators to seek new technologies to provide experiential learning opportunities, such as virtual simulation (VS). The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the need for educators to investigate alternative learning opportunities. Methods A quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted with pre-licensure and advanced practice nursing students. They participated in a VS learning experience that was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS)®, the Clinical Learning Environment Comparison Survey (CLECS 2.0), and the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified (SET-M). Result 197 pre-licensure and 11 advanced nursing practice students completed post-simulation evaluations. The results from the SUS scale found the overall virtual system effective. Evaluating the CLECS tool found students’ perceived experience was relatively similar for face-to-face simulation and screen-based simulation. The SET-M indicated students rated the VS simulation experience positively. Conclusion