Effectiveness and Limitations of Virtual Reality in Laboratory Skills Training: A Focused Review

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly adopted in laboratory education for its scalability, safety, and capacity to provide rehearsal without consumables or biohazard risk. However, sensorimotor learning theory and empirical transfer-of-training research suggest significant limitations when tactile feedback, force modulation, and fine motor control are central to task performance. OBJECTIVE: This focused review critically evaluates the effectiveness of VR laboratory training for real-world hands-on skill acquisition and identifies practical implications for curriculum design and research priorities. METHODS: A systematic search of six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore) was conducted through January 31, 2026. Evidence was stratified into three levels: (A) direct laboratory studies (wet/dry lab techniques, biosafety procedures, instrument handling), (B) homologous procedural domains (minimally invasive surgery, dentistry) for haptic and transfer mechanisms, and (C) theoretical literature on motor learning and fidelity. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 framework across 62 studies. Data were synthesized qualitatively due to heterogeneity in interventions, outcomes, and assessment methods. RESULTS: VR demonstrated consistent strengths for cognitive rehearsal, procedural familiarization, hazard awareness, and scalable practice of rare scenarios. However, evidence for transfer to tactile- and force-sensitive laboratory tasks was mixed and often weak. Most visual-dominant or low-haptic systems improved in-simulator performance but showed limited far-transfer to real tasks requiring fine tactile control. Risk of bias assessment revealed 29% low risk, 56.5% moderate risk, and 14.5% high risk across reviewed studies. Principal limiting factors included inadequate haptic/force feedback, reduced ecological complexity, reliance on visual/gamified metrics poorly predictive of tactile competence, inconsistent assessment validity, user and hardware variability, and implementation costs. CONCLUSION: VR shows considerable value for cognitive and gross motor components of laboratory training but demonstrates limited and inconsistent transfer to fine tactile and force-sensitive skills when haptic fidelity is inadequate. Effectiveness is highly dependent on system fidelity, task characteristics, and integration within blended curricula. VR demonstrates the greatest promise when used in staged training programs combining virtual practice with supervised hands-on experience and validated real-world competency assessment.