Table 3.

Participant post-study evaluation. n (%), N = 40

Survey Item	0	1–3	4–7	8–10
MR anatomy was realistic	1(2.5)	2(5.0)	4(10)	33(82.5)
MR helped identify landmarks	3(7.5)	1(2.5)	1(2.5)	35(87.5)
Easier to learn internal anatomy	2(5.0)	0(0)	0(0)	38(95)
Easy to use	4(10)	1(2.5)	5(12.5)	30(75)
MR made training interesting	2(5.0)	3(7.5)	2(5.0)	33(82.5)
MR improved my confidence in LP skills	0(0)	0(0)	3(7.5)	37(92.5)
MR helped me to improve my LP skills	1(2.5)	3(7.5)	7(17.5)	29(72.5)
MR will be useful in my medical training	0(0)	2(5.0)	1(2.5)	37(92.5)
MR will promote learning
Novel features and functionalities	1(2.5)	2(5.0)	4(10)	33(82.5)
Interaction between stimulator and trainee	2(5.0)	1(2.5)	5(12.5)	32(80.0)
MR was a useful tool of medical training	0(0)	1(2.5)	2(5.0)	37(92.5)
Agreement to apply MR in medical training	2(5.0)	2(5.0)	3(7.5)	33(82.5)

A scale of 0–10 was set, with 0 representing disagreement, 1 representing agreement and 10 representing strong agreement. Participants scored the questions based on their level of agreement with the item