Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270806›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Training outcomes for audiology students using virtual reality or traditional training methods.

David Bakhos, John Galvin, Jean-Marie Aoustin, Mathieu Robier, Sandrine Kerneis, Garance Bechet, Norbert Montembault, Stéphane Laurent, Benoit Godey, Charles Aussedat

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David BakhosCHU de Tours, service ORL et Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Tours, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1417-5082
John GalvinINSERM UMR 1253 I-brain, Université François-Rabelais de Tours, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.
Jean-Marie AoustinCHU de Tours, service ORL et Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Tours, France.
Mathieu RobierCHU de Tours, service ORL et Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Tours, France.
Sandrine KerneisCHU de Tours, service ORL et Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Tours, France.
Garance BechetEcole d'audioprothèse JE Bertin, Université de Rennes 1, Javene, France.
Norbert MontembaultEcole d'audioprothèse JE Bertin, Université de Rennes 1, Javene, France.
Stéphane LaurentEcole d'audioprothèse JE Bertin, Université de Rennes 1, Javene, France.
Benoit GodeyEcole d'audioprothèse JE Bertin, Université de Rennes 1, Javene, France.
Charles AussedatCHU de Tours, service ORL et Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Tours, France.
Université Rennes 2 · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRUniversité de Tours · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to limited space and resources, it can be difficult to train students on audiological procedures adequately. In the present study, we compared audiology training outcomes between a traditional approach and a recently developed immersive virtual reality (VR) approach in audiology students. Twenty-nine first-year audiology students participated in the study; 14 received traditional training ("TT group"), and 15 received the VR training ("VRT group"). Pre- and post-training evaluation included a 20-item test developed by an audiology educator. Post-training satisfaction and self-confidence were evaluated using Likert scales. Mean post-training test scores improved by 6.9±9.8 percentage points in the TT group and by 21.1±7.8 points in the VRT group; the improvement in scores was significant for both groups. After completing the traditional training, the TT group was subsequently trained with the VR system, after which mean scores further improved by 7.5 points; there was no significant difference in post-VR training scores between the TT and VRT groups. After training, the TT and VRT groups completed satisfaction and self-confidence questionnaires. Satisfaction and self-confidence ratings were significantly higher for the VR training group, compared to the traditional training group. Satisfaction ratings were "good" (4 on Likert scale) for 74% of the TT group and 100% of the VRT group. Self-confidence ratings were "good" for 71% of the TT group and 92% of the VRT group. These results suggest that a VR training approach may be an effective alternative or supplement to traditional training for audiology students.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAdolescentAudiologyHigh Fidelity Simulation TrainingHumansPersonal SatisfactionProfessional CompetenceProspective StudiesSelf ConceptStudents, Health OccupationsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33270806
PMCPMC7714342
OpenAlexW3108769595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.