Key result
Virtual environment training significantly increased knowledge transfer (median score 4 to 7, p=0.003), whereas real environment training showed a non-significant increase (4 to 5, p=0.375).
Why the study?
The use of virtual reality technology to train professionals has increased, but its effectiveness compared to real training environments for firefighters needed evaluation.
Does Virtual Environment training compared to Real Environment training improve effectiveness and knowledge transfer in firefighters?
Does Virtual Environment training compared to Real Environment training improve effectiveness and knowledge transfer in firefighters?
Absolute Event Rate: 7% vs 5%
p-value: p=0.003
Virtual environment training for firefighters provides effective knowledge transfer, though overall effectiveness based on physiological stress and other metrics was deemed lower than real environment training.
VE training elicits stress and knowledge gains but less than RE; leaves open equivalence in larger trials before practice adoption.
The use of Virtual Reality (VR) technology to train professionals has increased over the years due to its advantages over traditional training. This paper presents a study comparing the effectiveness of a Virtual Environment (VE) and a Real Environment (RE) designed to train firefighters. To measure the effectiveness of the environments, a new method based on participants' Heart Rate Variability (HRV) was used. This method was complemented with self-reports, in the form of questionnaires, of fatigue, stress, sense of presence, and cybersickness. An additional questionnaire was used to measure and compare knowledge transfer enabled by the environments. The results from HRV analysis indicated that participants were under physiological stress in both environments, albeit with less intensity on the VE. Regarding reported fatigue and stress, the results showed that none of the environments increased such variables. The results of knowledge transfer showed that the VE obtained a significant increase while the RE obtained a positive but non-significant increase (median values, VE: before - 4 after - 7, p = .003; RE: before - 4 after - 5, p = .375). Lastly, the results of presence and cybersickness suggested that participants experienced high overall presence and no cybersickness. Considering all results, the authors conclude that the VE provided effective training but that its effectiveness was lower than that of the RE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2022 study studied Firefighter training. Virtual Environment (VE) training vs. Real Environment (RE) training was evaluated on Knowledge transfer (p=0.003). Virtual environment training significantly increased knowledge transfer (median score 4 to 7, p=0.003), whereas real environment training showed a non-significant increase (4 to 5, p=0.375).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: