Table 5 Participants’ Perceptions of the Mixed Reality (MR) Trainer
From: Mixed reality simulation for peripheral intravenous catheter placement training
SD | D | Neither | A | SA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MR anatomy was realistic | 2 (3.2) | 4 (6.5) | 6 (9.7) | 42 67.7) | 8 (12.9) |
Ability to identify landmarks useful | 2 (3.2) | 3 (4.8) | 7 (11.3) | 42 (67.7) | 8 (12.9) |
Ability to see internal structures useful | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.6) | 2 (3.2) | 40 (64.5) | 19 (30.6) |
MR trainer was easy to use | 0 (0.0) | 4 (6.5) | 7 (11.3) | 32 (51.6) | 19 (30.6) |
MR trainer was enjoyable | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.2) | 7 (11.3) | 24 38.7) | 29 (46.8) |
MR improved ability to place IV | 2 (3.2) | 5 (8.1) | 18 (29.0) | 25 (40.3) | 12 (19.4) |
MR features support learning | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.6) | 4 (6.5) | 37 (59.7) | 20 (32.3) |
MR interactivity promotes learning | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (6.5) | 36 (58.1) | 22 (35.5) |
MR novelty promotes learning | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.6) | 7 (11.3) | 32 (51.6) | 22 (35.5) |
MR useful tool for skills training | 1 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 12 (19.4) | 26 (41.9) | 23 (37.1) |
Include MR in medical training | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (6.5) | 30 (48.4) | 28 (45.2) |
MR useful bridge to ultrasound | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.2) | 5 (8.1) | 29 (46.8) | 26 (41.9) |