ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of virtual reality development centers and 270-degree evaluations in the context of mid-level managers' competencies.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual Reality Development Centres (VRDCs) represent a recent extension of Assessment Center (AC) methodology, yet empirical evidence on their validity and their relationship to established evaluation systems remains limited. This study addresses this gap by examining how VRDC assessments-grounded in immersive, real-time behavioral observation-converge with traditional 270-degree evaluations and self-assessments across five managerial competencies. Using a sample of 64 mid-level managers who completed 16 VRDC sessions and parallel 270-degree evaluations, we tested three hypotheses concerning convergent validity and unique diagnostic value. VRDC demonstrated strong inter-rater reliability (rwg = .82-.95; ICC(2) =.76-.92) and showed significant alignment with 270-degree ratings for managing people and tasks, goal orientation, and change management, but not for decision-making or cooperation. Self-assessments correlated with VRDC only for cooperation, and negatively for managing people and tasks, revealing consistent self-perception biases. Across all competencies, VRDC provided diagnostic insights not captured by self-report, supporting its added theoretical value. The findings contribute to theory by clarifying the distinct construct domains captured by immersive behavioral simulations versus retrospective, perception-based evaluations. We argue that VRDC should be conceptualized not merely as a technological enhancement, but as a methodological bridge that integrates AC logic with multi-source frameworks. Practically, VRDC offers organizations a reliable and context-sensitive tool for assessing crisis-relevant competencies, complementing-but not replacing-traditional evaluation methods. The study advances the theoretical understanding of VR-based assessment and informs the development of multimethod competency assessment systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.