# NursingXR: Advancing Nursing Education Through Virtual Reality-Based Training
## 5 Results and Discussion
### Quantitative Analysis
The _t_-test results (_p_-value = 0.1570) confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. This suggests that object manipulation was accessible across experience levels, although minor improvements could enhance interaction consistency. This provides insight into how interface design and interaction mechanics influence user experience (RQ2). As for general functionality, the visual appeal (_Q4_) of the application was rated highly by both groups, with novices assigning a mean score of 3.4 and experts a mean score of 3.84. The difference approached significance but was ultimately not statistically significant (_p_-value = 0.0948). These results indicate that the platform's visual design and fidelity were appreciated by participants regardless of experience, highlighting its engaging and immersive qualities (RQ5). For the clarity of procedural steps (_Q5_) which was evaluated with the statement, \"Steps to complete procedure were easily understood\", novices gave this a mean score of 3.68, whereas experts rated it 3.21. While the _t_-test result (_p_-value = 0.0681) indicated a trend toward significance, the findings suggest that novices might find the procedures slightly easier to follow compared to experts, possibly due to differing expectations or familiarity with traditional methods (RQ3). When asked if \"VR lessons are similar to those in real life\" (_Q6_), novices and experts were in close agreement, with mean scores of 3.36 and 3.38, respectively. The lack of significant difference (_p_-value = 0.9514) suggests that both groups found the VR lessons reasonably reflective of real-world nursing procedures, validating the realism embedded in the platform (RQ1). Finally, the potential of VR as an equivalent or complementary educational method was assessed through several questions. For the statement, \"VR educational potential is at least equivalent to traditional methods\" (_Q7_), novices assigned a mean score of 3.52, while experts rated it slightly higher at 3.64. However, the _t_-test (_p_-value = 0.6278) revealed no significant difference between the groups, suggesting that both novices and experts recognize VR's viability as a teaching tool comparable to traditional laboratory methods (RQ1). In terms of VR serving as a complementary tool to traditional methods (_Q8_), novices rated this higher (mean = 3.36) than experts (mean = 3.09), though the difference was not significant (_p_-value = 0.3287). These findings indicate that novices tend to view VR more favorably as a supplement to traditional teaching methods compared to experts (RQ3). This may reflect the open-minded perspective of novices who are less entrenched in traditional methods. The platform's potential for improving memory retention was evaluated through the statement, \"VR provides better information retention (memory capacity) than traditional education\" (_Q9_). Novices rated this higher (mean = 3.88) compared to experts (mean = 3.60), though the difference was not statistically significant (_p_-value = 0.3075). These results suggest that both groups perceive VR as a promising tool for enhancing memory retention (RQ5), though its effectiveness in this regard may vary based on individual preferences and learning styles, similar to what was found in [46]. Figure 9 further highlights experts' perceptions of VR's broader applicability in nursing education and didactic capacity, particularly its potential to support learning beyond the immediate scope of NursingXR. When asked to respond to three specific statements (on a 5-point Likert scale), responses from experts shed light on the platform's perceived strengths and areas for broader educational impact. The findings show that responses were predominantly high, indicating a generally positive reception to VR's role in nursing education.