An interventional study of Virtual reality instructional design and Role-playing instructional design in Virtual Reality, sponsored by Shenandoah University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 22 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-21.
Sponsored by Shenandoah University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
The objective of this study is to assess the effects of virtual reality instructional design on physical therapy students' clinical decision-making skills, as compared with a traditional method of instruction with the same content and duration of exposure.
An online random number generator will be used to randomize students into one of two groups: virtual reality instruction or role-paying instruction. All students will complete self-reported measures of clinical decision-making and metacognitive awareness prior to receiving their allocated instruction. While completing allocated instruction (either virtual reality or role-playing), measures of diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic efficiency will be collected. Following virtual reality or role-playing instruction, all included subjects will complete post-test measures of clinical decision-making ,metacognitive awareness, and engagement. One week later, all included subjects will be assessed on a musculoskeletal objective structured clinical examination (mOSCE).
Shenandoah University is the lead sponsor of 12 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Completion of virtual reality simulation of an outpatient physical therapy evaluation.
Other: Virtual reality instructional design
Completion of traditional role-playing of a scripted outpatient physical therapy evaluation
Other: Role-playing instructional design
60 minute immersive VR experience with branching method information delivery, physical therapy assessment, and diagnosis.
60 minute traditional role-playing with standardized patient
Change in clinical decision-making
The Clinical Decision-Making Tool (CDM-Tool), a Likert-style questionnaire with 12 items, scored on a four-point scale. A higher raw score indicates a higher level of perceived decision-making ability.
Time frame: pre- and post-instructional design (immediately after completing virtual reality or role-playing)
Change in metacognitive awareness
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), a Likert-style questionnaire with 52-items, scored on a five-point scale. A higher raw score indicates a higher level of perceived metacognitive awareness.
Time frame: pre and post-instructional design (immediately after completing virtual reality or role-playing)
Self-reported measure of engagement
Six-item, five-point Likert-style instrument. A higher raw score indicates greater level of student engagement.
Time frame: Post-instruction (immediately after completing either virtual reality or role-playing experience)
Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
Practical examination with 2 cases, assessing a student's ability to generate hypotheses, perform tests or measures to rule-in or rule-out hypotheses, and deliver an appropriate intervention.
Time frame: 1 week following allocated instruction (either virtual reality or role-playing)
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Shenandoah University