Learner evaluation of an immersive virtual reality mass casualty incident simulator for triage training

BMC Digital Health

Table 4 Perceived utility of the VR system for the future. Means (Mn), standard deviations (SD), frequencies and percentages along with independent t-test results (with Cohen’s d effect sizes (es)), that compared EMS (N = 323) to Medical (N = 51) professionals on the value or utility of the VR system for training in the future

Item	Profession	N	Mn	SD	1–2	3	4–5
The MCI-VR training was as effective as live training	EMS	322	3.91	.88	27 (8)	51 (16)	244 (76)
The MCI-VR training was as effective as live training	MED	50	3.82	.98	6 (12)	11 (22)	33 (66)
I would recommend this experience to other first responders (or those interested in becoming one).* (es = .45)	EMS	324	4.55	.58	0	14 (4)	310 (96)
	MED	50	4.80	.40	0	0	50 (100)
	Profession	N	Mn	SD	D-F	C	A-B
Overall grade I would assign the VR Simulator a grade of:	EMS	319	4.51	.63	2 (1)	17 (5)	300 (94)
Overall grade I would assign the VR Simulator a grade of:	MED	51	4.67	.55	0	2 (4)	49 (96)

Notes: Ratings of effectiveness and recommendations were performed with a 5-point Likert Response Set: (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Disagree/Agree Equally (D/A =), 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree). Overall ratings were assigned using letter grades: (F = 1, D = 2, C = 3, B = 4, and A = 5) Percentages are based on numbers within professional group (ie. row percentages). Adjusted P-values for significance were: k/P = .05/3 = .02
^*P ≤ .001; es = Cohen’s D effect sizes, which can be interpreted as: .2 to .4 = small, .5 to .7 = intermediate, and ≥ .80 = large [28]

ISSN: 2731-684X