An interventional study of Virtual Reality-Based Learning Tool and Traditional Small Group Training in Nurse's Role, Nurse-Patient Relations and Exanimation, sponsored by Gazi University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-10.
Sponsored by Gazi University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Aim To compare the effects of immersive virtual reality (I-VR) and peer-assisted small-group practice on nursing students' knowledge, skill performance, and performance time in respiratory system physical examination.
Background Respiratory system physical examination is a fundamental yet difficult-to-teach clinical skill in nursing education. Although I-VR has increasingly been used in physical examination teaching, existing studies have largely focused on limited examination components, most commonly inspection or auscultation. Evidence remains limited on how respiratory system physical examination can be taught as a holistic and structured clinical process within an I-VR environment.
Design A single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial with a pre-test/post-test design.
Methods Second-year nursing students from a university participated in the study. Participants were randomized to either the I-VR group or the peer-assisted small-group practice group. Data were collected using a knowledge test, a skill checklist, performance time measurement, and a technology acceptance questionnaire. Analyses included t-tests, chi-square tests, Pearson correlation analyses, and frequency analyses.
Results Knowledge and skill scores improved in both groups, but the increase was significantly greater in the I-VR group (p \<0.001). Performance time was longer in the I-VR group (p =0.01). Students also rated the I-VR simulation highly in terms of feasibility and usability.
Conclusions A systematically designed I-VR approach may be a useful instructional option for teaching respiratory system physical examination as a holistic, multi-step clinical skill in undergraduate nursing education.
1.1. Objectives
The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of immersive virtual reality (I-VR) and peer-assisted small-group practice on nursing students' respiratory system physical examination training in terms of knowledge, skill performance, and completion time. The secondary objective was to explore students' perceptions of the feasibility and usability of the I-VR simulation.
1.2. Hypotheses
H1: Post-intervention knowledge scores differ between the I-VR group and the peer-assisted small-group practice group.
H2: Post-intervention skill performance scores differ between the two groups. H3: Knowledge scores are positively associated with skill performance in both groups.
H4: Performance time differs between students trained with I-VR and those trained with peer-assisted small-group practice.
2. Methods 2.1. Design
This assessor-blinded, parallel-group, pre-test/post-test randomized controlled trial was reported in line with the CONSORT 2025 statement.
2.2. Population and Sample
The study was conducted with nursing students enrolled at a university during the 2023-2024 academic year. Eligible participants were second-year students aged 18 years or older who had completed the Health Assessment course and agreed to participate voluntarily. Students with prior graduation from a health-related program, repeat course enrollment, or visual conditions affecting depth perception were excluded.
Sample size was estimated using G*Power 3.1.9.7, indicating a minimum of 68 participants. Allowing for possible attrition, the final target sample was set at 80 students, with 40 participants in each group.
2.3. Randomization
Among 83 eligible students, all were assigned identification numbers and anonymized by an independent statistician. Three students were randomly excluded to reach the target sample size. The remaining 80 participants were stratified by academic achievement and gender, then allocated to either the I-VR group or the peer-assisted small-group practice group using Random.org. Baseline testing confirmed group homogeneity for academic achievement and gender (p > 0.05).
2.4. Blinding
Randomization was conducted independently by computer. Participant blinding was maintained throughout the study. In addition, skill performance was evaluated by an independent blinded assessor, and statistical analyses were performed using coded group data. To reduce contamination, the two groups were trained separately and at different times, and participants were asked not to discuss the interventions until the study was completed.
2.5. Development of the I-VR Simulation
The I-VR scenario for respiratory system physical examination was developed in accordance with the INACSL Simulation Design Standards and Jeffries' Simulation Theory. The scenario focused on the preoperative assessment of a patient capable of basic self-care and was aligned with course objectives and the relevant literature.
Content validity was evaluated by 13 field experts, yielding item-level content validity index (I-CVI) values between 0.92 and 1.00 (Kendall's W = 0.40, p = 0.01). The simulation was created with an external software team experienced in Unity-based VR/XR systems (ClinVR). It functioned as a multi-user, controller-free system using hand tracking. Students entered a virtual examination room, completed preparatory steps, performed respiratory examination procedures, interpreted findings, communicated with the patient, and documented results.
Technical adequacy and content suitability were reviewed in multiple stages by technical experts and researchers, followed by pilot testing with 10 nursing students. Revisions were made based on feedback, and the final version required approximately 30-40 minutes per user, depending on familiarity with VR technology.
2.6. Data Collection Instruments 2.6.1. Descriptive Characteristics Form
This researcher-developed form included nine items covering demographic, academic, and technology-related characteristics. Expert review showed I-CVI values ranging from 0.92 to 1.00 (Kendall's W = 0.72, p = 0.00).
2.6.2. Knowledge Test
The knowledge test was developed by the researchers based on course objectives and the literature. Expert evaluation indicated I-CVI values between 0.92 and 1.00 (Kendall's W = 0.72, p = 0.00). A pilot study with 80 third-year nursing students was used for item analysis. One weak item was removed, and the final test contained 20 questions with varying difficulty levels. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, and the test duration was 30 minutes.
2.6.3. Skill Checklist
The skill checklist was developed from the literature to assess respiratory system physical examination performance within a standardized scenario. Expert review demonstrated I-CVI values between 0.92 and 1.00 (Kendall's W = 0.72, p = 0.00). Following pilot testing with 10 students, the final checklist included 48 steps and yielded scores from 0 to 96.
2.6.4. Technology Acceptance Questionnaire
The technology acceptance questionnaire was developed by the researchers based on the Technology Acceptance Model and related studies. It consisted of 27 items assessing feasibility (perceived ease of use) and usability (perceived usefulness) of the I-VR simulation using a five-point Likert scale. Expert evaluation showed I-CVI values between 0.84 and 1.00 (Kendall's W = 0.68, p = 0.00). Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.86 for feasibility and 0.84 for usability.
2.7. Procedures 2.7.1. Standardized Pre-Intervention Training
Before group allocation, all students received the same preliminary training, including two class hours of theoretical instruction on respiratory system anatomy, physiology, examination steps, and normal/abnormal findings, supported by demonstration videos.
2.7.2. Laboratory-Based Skills Training
One week later, all students participated in laboratory practice using high-fidelity simulators and training manikins. This ensured that all participants had the same baseline practical preparation before the interventions.
2.7.3. Pre-Test
One week before the intervention, participants completed the knowledge test and underwent a skill performance assessment with a standardized patient. Performance time was recorded by the independent evaluator. Students were informed that the assessment would not affect their course grades.
2.7.4. Pre-Briefing
Before the intervention, the peer-assisted small-group practice group received a 10-minute briefing on the session and procedures. The I-VR group received a 5-minute scenario briefing and a 5-minute VR orientation.
2.7.5. Implementation Phase 2.7.5.1. Immersive Virtual Reality Group
Each participant in the I-VR group was given one hour to complete the simulation individually. Students progressed at their own pace, repeated steps when necessary, and performed the respiratory system examination in a virtual environment. The simulation included preparation, patient interaction, inspection, palpation, percussion, auscultation, interpretation of findings, and documentation. Participants also completed self-checklists during the process and were allowed to take breaks if needed.
2.7.5.2. Peer-Assisted Small-Group Practice Group
Participants in this group were organized into groups of eight and worked in peer pairs. Based on peer-assisted learning principles, each student alternated between patient and nurse roles within standardized scenarios. Each pair had one hour to practice, repeat procedures, and reinforce learning through peer observation and structured feedback. Researchers only observed the process to maintain safety, privacy, and time control. Written informed consent was obtained, and physical contact boundaries were clarified beforehand.
2.8. Debriefing
After the interventions, separate debriefing sessions were conducted by simulation-trained researchers using the PEARLS framework. Students reflected on their feelings, described the scenario, evaluated their performance, and identified key points. Each session lasted approximately 25-30 minutes. After debriefing, students in the I-VR group completed the technology acceptance questionnaire.
2.9. Post-Test
One week after the intervention, all participants repeated the knowledge test and underwent a second skill performance assessment with a standardized patient. Performance time was again recorded by the evaluator.
2.10. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23. Descriptive statistics included frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. Normality was assessed using skewness, kurtosis, and histogram distributions. Independent samples t-tests were used for between-group comparisons, paired samples t-tests for within-group comparisons, chi-square tests for categorical variables, and Pearson correlation analysis to examine relationships between continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval.
2.11. Ethical Approval Statement
Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant university ethics committee (02 August 2023; E-77082166-302.08.01-711267).
138 studies on the registry are indexed under Coma; 35 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 76 is below the median of 85 across 77 interventional studies indexed under Coma.
Browse Coma studies →Gazi University is the lead sponsor of 551 studies on the registry; 102 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
The student must:
Exclusion criteria from the study:
The student must:
Criteria for removal from the study:
The student must:
Following the orientation, each participant was allocated a fixed one-hour period to complete the I-VR simulation. During this session, participants progressed through the application at their own pace, could repeat steps as needed, and performed the respiratory system physical examination holistically in the virtual environment. Within the simulation, participants prepared the necessary materials, communicated with the virtual patient, performed inspection, carried out superficial palpation, chest expansion, and thoracic vibration assessments, conducted indirect percussion, and performed auscultation. They also evaluated normal and abnormal respiratory and percussion sounds, informed the patient about the examination findings, and recorded the assessment data in the system. In addition, they completed self-checklist forms after each examination step. Participants were allowed to remove the headset and take breaks whenever needed throughout the training session.
Other: Virtual Reality-Based Learning Tool
After the pre-briefing, participants were divided into groups of eight, with four peer pairs formed within each group. The implementation was conducted according to peer-assisted learning principles and aligned with the peer practice approach (Lam et al., 2024). During the session, each participant assumed two roles: (i) a patient admitted to the surgical ward for an operation and capable of independent self-care, and (ii) a clinical nurse responsible for performing a preoperative respiratory system examination and managing postoperative follow-up. These roles were alternated within standardized scenarios. Each pair was given a total of one hour for the activity, allowing students to proceed at their own pace and repeat the examination as needed. Throughout the sessions, participants reinforced their learning through mutual observation, structured peer feedback, and role switching. Researchers remained in an observational role without direct intervention in order to ensure safety, pri
Other: Traditional Small Group Training
The intervention involves the use of a virtual reality-based learning tool to teach thorax and lung physical examination skills. The tool uses Oculus Meta Quest 2 VR headset to provide immersive simulation experiences. The VR tool includes high-quality graphics and interactive scenarios to facilitate skill development.
The intervention involves traditional small group training conducted in the Nursing Principles Skills Laboratory. This training includes hands-on practice with physical examination techniques using simulation mannequins and feedback from instructors. The approach is designed to provide practical experience without the use of virtual reality technology.
Knowledge Test
The knowledge test was created by the researchers to evaluate participants' theoretical understanding of the physical examination of the respiratory system, aligned with the course content and learning objectives (Choi et al., 2021; Des Jardins \& Burton, 2023; Fennessey \& Wittmann-Price, 2011; Jarvis, 2023; Narula et al., 2018; Reyes et al., 2024; Tybjerg, 2023). According to expert assessments, the I-CVI scores for each item ranged from 0.92 to 1.00, with an inter-rater agreement of Kendall's W =0.72 and p =0.00 (Davis, 1989). To assess the suitability of the knowledge test items, a pilot study was conducted with a group of 80 third-year undergraduate nursing students who had previously completed the Health Assessment course. After the pilot, the Item Difficulty Index (IDI) and Item Discrimination Index (IDIsc) were calculated for each question. One question with an IDI of 0.11 and an IDIsc of 0.15 was removed from the test. The final version of the knowledge test was designed to ens
Time frame: Skill levels will be assessed seven days before the intervention (pre-test) and seven days after the intervention (post-test).
Skill Checklist
The skill checklist was created by the researchers, based on relevant literature, to assess participants' respiratory system physical examination skills (Choi et al., 2021; Des Jardins \& Burton, 2023; Fennessey \& Wittmann-Price, 2011; Jarvis, 2023; Narula et al., 2018; Reyes et al., 2024; Tybjerg, 2023). The form was organized around a scenario where the student performs a respiratory system physical exam on a conscious patient who can meet basic needs independently in a single-patient examination room. According to expert evaluations, the I-CVI scores for individual items ranged from 0.92 to 1.00, with inter-rater agreement of Kendall's W =0.72 and p =0.00 (Davis, 1989). The pilot version of the form was tested with a group of ten third-year nursing students who had previously completed the Health Assessment course. Based on their feedback, the final version of the checklist included 48 procedural steps, with a total possible score ranging from 0 to 96.
Time frame: Knowledge levels will be evaluated seven days prior to the intervention (pre-test) and seven days following the intervention (post-test)
Technology Acceptance Questionnaire
The researchers created the technology acceptance questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and relevant literature (Bıyık Bayram \& Çalışkan, 2019; Farra et al., 2015; Nilashi \& Abumalloh, 2025). The survey included 27 items assessing the feasibility (Items 1-12; perceived ease of use) and usability (Items 13-27; perceived usefulness) of the I-VR simulation tool. Participants indicated their opinions on the I-VR simulation using a five-point Likert scale. According to expert evaluations, the I-CVI values for individual items ranged from 0.84 to 1.00, with inter-rater agreement of Kendall's W =0.68 and p =0.00 (Davis, 1989). Internal consistency reliability analysis produced a Cronbach's α of 0.86 for the feasibility subdimension and a Cronbach's α of 0.84 for the usability subdimension.
Time frame: Seven days after the intervention
Plan to share: No
Ran from May 2024 to primary completion in Jun 2024, 0 months.
Of 39 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Coma, half reached primary completion within 39 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 17 and three quarters within 54. This study's 0 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 39 studies reached it within 39 months; a quarter within 17 and three quarters within 54.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2026. 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.