Table 3.
Questionnaire results.
|
|
Instructor trainers　 | Students | |
| Sample size, n | 6 | 8 | |
| Course satisfactiona, score (median [IQR]) | 5 (4.25-5) | 4.5 (4-5) | |
| Operability of virtual reality equipmenta, score (median [IQR]) | 4 (4-4) | 4 (3-4) | |
| Virtual reality sicknessb, score (median [IQR]) | 5 (4.25-5) | 5 (4.50-5) | |
| Suitability for implementation in virtual realityc, score (median [IQR]) | |||
|
|
Discussion: what is instruction? | 5 (3.5-5) | 5 (3-5) |
|
|
Presentation: education techniques | 3 (3-4.5) | 5 (3-5) |
|
|
Role-play: explaining the use of supplies | 5 (3.5-5) | 5 (4.5-5) |
|
|
Role-play: teaching specific skills | 3 (3-4.5) | 3 (1-3.5) |
|
|
Practical training: setting up a simulation booth | 3 (3-4.5) | 3 (3-5) |
|
|
Role-play: performance evaluation and feedback | 5 (5-5) | 5 (3-5) |
|
|
Role-play: leading a scenario exercise | 4 (3-5) | 5 (1-5) |
aLikert scale: bad=1; good=5.
bLikert scale: severe=1; none=5.
cLikert scale (suitable for implementation in virtual reality): no=1; yes=5.