Table 4.

Evaluation of the VR intervention by therapists (N=6).

Question and answers		n (%)a
Was the degree of interaction of the VR SCT adequate?
	More than adequate		2 (33)
	Adequate		1 (17)
	Somewhat inadequate		2 (33)
Are the used scenarios relevant for daily life?
	Yes		2 (33)
	Yes, but needs improvement		3 (50)
	No, somewhat unnatural		1 (17)
Do you consider the difficulty level to be adequate?
	Yes		2 (33)
	Adequate		1 (17)
	Needs to be more difficult		1 (17)
	Needs to be less difficult		1 (17)
	Depends on therapist		1 (17)
What were strengths of the intervention?
	Interactive role-play exercises (Module 3)		4 (67)
	Use of VR/Practice with social situations		3 (50)
	(Ease of use of) Protocol		3 (50)
	Structure of intervention		2 (33)
	Techniques/materials		1 (17)
	Enjoyable		1 (17)
Which components were effective or important?
	Role-play exercises (Module 3)		5 (83)
	Evaluation/reflection		3 (50)
	Practicing		1 (17)
	All components		1 (17)
What were weaknesses or annoyances?
	Technical issues/shortcomings		5 (83)
	Lack of reference to participants’ worksheets		2 (33)
	Homework instructions inadequate		1 (17)
	Goal setting difficult		1 (17)
	Module 1 too long		1 (17)
	Scenarios too long		1 (17)
	Thoughts–behavior–feelings technique too difficult		1 (17)
What did you think of the VR program?
	Good		2 (33)
	Adequate, but needs some improvement		4 (67)
	Easy/intuitive interface, easy to work with		4 (67)
	Good technical support		2 (33)
	Not sufficiently advanced graphically		1 (17)
What did you think of the number and duration of the sessions?
	Fine		4 (67)
	Fine, but should be structured differently		1 (17)
	Needs more sessions		1 (17)
	Needs longer sessions		1 (17)

^an (%) refers to the number and percentage of therapists who provided a certain answer. Because they could provide multiple answers to a single question and some therapists did not answer all questions completely, n (%) may not add to 6 (100).