Questionnaires for evaluating virtual reality: A systematic scoping review

IF 4.9 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Computers in human behavior reports Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100505
Lina Bareišytė , Syl Slatman , Judith Austin , Martin Rosema , Iris van Sintemaartensdijk , Steven Watson , Christina Bode
{"title":"Questionnaires for evaluating virtual reality: A systematic scoping review","authors":"Lina Bareišytė ,&nbsp;Syl Slatman ,&nbsp;Judith Austin ,&nbsp;Martin Rosema ,&nbsp;Iris van Sintemaartensdijk ,&nbsp;Steven Watson ,&nbsp;Christina Bode","doi":"10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging technology in fields including education and healthcare. A challenge for VR researchers is knowing which VR evaluation instruments exist, and which best align with their research objectives. Therefore, a systematic scoping review was conducted to identify and appraise questionnaires that evaluate VR.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A scoping review across five scientific databases identified articles that described the development of questionnaires that evaluated VR. All identified articles were screened and data about the measured constructs, (psychometric) properties, and availability were extracted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The initial search identified 4461 articles, 151 were full text screened, and 56 were included in the review. In total, seven constructs were measured to evaluate VR, of which presence (<em>n</em> = 26), user experience (<em>n</em> = 15) and motion sickness (<em>n</em> = 6) were most commonly used. However, these constructs were not always clearly defined, and measures of the same construct often differed in their content. Reliability was reported for 34 (59%) questionnaires, evaluations of validity were found in 42 (72%) questionnaires. Moreover, recommendations per construct on most optimal VR questionnaires were proposed.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>A wide range of questionnaires used to evaluate VR were identified. Further, VR-related constructs were reviewed by comparing definitions, exploring questionnaire items, and examining their differences. Where relevant, constructs were divided (e.g. presence was divided into social, self, and spatial), and suitable definitions for each (sub-)construct were given. We provide recommendations for a structured approach of the development of measures to evaluate VR alongside priority areas where new measures are most sorely needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72681,"journal":{"name":"Computers in human behavior reports","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100505"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in human behavior reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging technology in fields including education and healthcare. A challenge for VR researchers is knowing which VR evaluation instruments exist, and which best align with their research objectives. Therefore, a systematic scoping review was conducted to identify and appraise questionnaires that evaluate VR.

Methods

A scoping review across five scientific databases identified articles that described the development of questionnaires that evaluated VR. All identified articles were screened and data about the measured constructs, (psychometric) properties, and availability were extracted.

Results

The initial search identified 4461 articles, 151 were full text screened, and 56 were included in the review. In total, seven constructs were measured to evaluate VR, of which presence (n = 26), user experience (n = 15) and motion sickness (n = 6) were most commonly used. However, these constructs were not always clearly defined, and measures of the same construct often differed in their content. Reliability was reported for 34 (59%) questionnaires, evaluations of validity were found in 42 (72%) questionnaires. Moreover, recommendations per construct on most optimal VR questionnaires were proposed.

Discussion

A wide range of questionnaires used to evaluate VR were identified. Further, VR-related constructs were reviewed by comparing definitions, exploring questionnaire items, and examining their differences. Where relevant, constructs were divided (e.g. presence was divided into social, self, and spatial), and suitable definitions for each (sub-)construct were given. We provide recommendations for a structured approach of the development of measures to evaluate VR alongside priority areas where new measures are most sorely needed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚拟现实评估问卷:系统性范围审查
导言 虚拟现实(VR)是教育和医疗等领域的新兴技术。虚拟现实研究人员面临的一个挑战是了解有哪些虚拟现实评估工具,以及哪些最符合他们的研究目标。因此,我们进行了一次系统性的范围界定审查,以确定和评估评估 VR 的问卷。方法 通过对五个科学数据库进行范围界定审查,确定了描述开发 VR 评估问卷的文章。对所有确定的文章进行了筛选,并提取了有关所测量的构造、(心理测量)特性和可用性的数据。结果初步搜索确定了 4461 篇文章,对其中 151 篇进行了全文筛选,56 篇被纳入综述。总共测量了七种结构来评估虚拟现实,其中最常用的是临场感(26)、用户体验(15)和晕动病(6)。然而,这些构念并不总是有明确的定义,对同一构念的测量往往在内容上有所不同。据报告,34 份(59%)问卷具有可靠性,42 份(72%)问卷具有有效性评估。此外,还就最理想的 VR 问卷的每个构念提出了建议。此外,还通过比较定义、探索问卷项目和研究它们之间的差异,对与虚拟现实相关的构造进行了审查。在相关的情况下,我们对建构进行了划分(例如,临场感被划分为社会、自我和空间),并对每个(子)建构给出了合适的定义。我们为制定虚拟现实评估措施的结构化方法提供了建议,同时也为最急需新措施的优先领域提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of social media reports on nurses’ job satisfaction: A cross-section suvery I Don't matter anyway. Will more Instagram change that? Anti-mattering and Instagram Feed vs. stories addiction symptoms: The moderating roles of loneliness and life satisfaction Surprising gender biases in GPT IT really matters: Associations of computer hassles and technical support with medically certified sickness absence due to mental health complaints Effect of business intelligence on organizational competitiveness- exploring the mediation of technology anxiety
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1