A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training

The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E) were developed to appraise methodological quality in medical education research. The study objective was to evaluate the interrater reliability, normative scores, and between-instrument correlation for these two instruments.

Methodological shortcomings in medical education research are often attributed to insufficient funding, yet an association between funding and study quality has not been established. To develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring the quality of education research studies and to assess the relationship between funding and study quality. Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion validity were determined for a 10-item medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). This was applied to 210 medical education research studies published in 13 peer-reviewed journals between September 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. The amount of funding obtained per study and the publication record of the first author were determined by survey. Study quality as measured by the MERSQI (potential maximum total score, 18; maximum domain score, 3), amount of funding per study, and previous publications by the first author. The mean MERSQI score was 9.95 (SD, 2.34; range, 5-16). Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (2.58) and lowest for validity (0.69). Intraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98 and 0.78 to 0.998, respectively. Total MERSQI scores were associated with expert quality ratings (Spearman rho, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.84; P < .001), 3-year citation rate (0.8 increase in score per 10 citations; 95% CI, 0.03-1.30; P = .003), and journal impact factor (1.0 increase in score per 6-unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.34-1.56; P = .003). In multivariate analysis, MERSQI scores were independently associated with study funding of $20 000 or more (0.95 increase in score; 95% CI, 0.22-1.86; P = .045) and previous medical education publications by the first author (1.07 increase in score per 20 publications; 95% CI, 0.15-2.23; P = .047). The quality of published medical education research is associated with study funding.

This is the first randomized trial comparing virtual reality exposure therapy to in vivo exposure for social anxiety disorder. Participants with a principal diagnosis of social anxiety disorder who identified public speaking as their primary fear (N = 97) were recruited from the community, resulting in an ethnically diverse sample (M age = 39 years) of mostly women (62%). Participants were randomly assigned to and completed 8 sessions of manualized virtual reality exposure therapy, exposure group therapy, or wait list. Standardized self-report measures were collected at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 12-month follow-up, and process measures were collected during treatment. A standardized speech task was delivered at pre- and posttreatment, and diagnostic status was reassessed at 3-month follow-up. Analysis of covariance showed that, relative to wait list, people completing either active treatment significantly improved on all but one measure (length of speech for exposure group therapy and self-reported fear of negative evaluation for virtual reality exposure therapy). At 12-month follow-up, people showed significant improvement from pretreatment on all measures. There were no differences between the active treatments on any process or outcome measure at any time, nor differences on achieving partial or full remission. Virtual reality exposure therapy is effective for treating social fears, and improvement is maintained for 1 year. Virtual reality exposure therapy is equally effective as exposure group therapy; further research with a larger sample is needed, however, to better control and statistically test differences between the treatments.