## 3 Results
### Data Analysis Performed by the Studies
\\  & \(\bullet\) & Non-parametric tests were used to observe differences in proportion of contact angles in range between baseline and short-term/retention/transfer as well as between groups. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} \(\bullet\) \\ Questionnaire (PQ). \\ \end{tabular}  } & User feedback questionnaire, Presence Questionnaire (PQ). \\  & Individual semi-structured interview \\  & following the completion of the VR wheelchair manoeuvres about the participant’s satisfaction and to express their views on the VR wheelchair manoeuvres. \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Thematic analysis was used to analyse interviews. \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Data from the wheelchair propulsion experiments. \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Propulsion kinematic variables were averaged and a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, followed by Bonferroni post-hoc comparison test, was used to determine whether the HMD-based intuitive VR stimulator modified the kinematic characteristics of the wheelchair propulsion. \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Descriptive statistics for the PQ satisfaction level based: involvement, sensory fidelity, adaptation/immersion, and interface quality. \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Thematic analysis was used to analyse interviews. \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Thematic analysis was used to analyse interviews. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & **Purpose** & **Analysis** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{7}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ et al. [53] \\ \end{tabular}  } & \(\bullet\) & Number of collision and the time of completion for each trial. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Virtual WC position at each time point, which was used to calculate the distance to objects in each task. \\  & \(\bullet\) & SSQ, IPQ, Short-Feedback Questionnaire (SFQ). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Paired \(t\)-tests to compare display conditions for performance, presence (PQ), and perception of VR activity (SFQ). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Repeated measures ANOVA for SSQ. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Display preference questionnaire through descriptive statistics only (distributions). \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] and \\ [PERSON]- \\ [PERSON] [54] \\ \end{tabular}  } & \(\bullet\) & Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire (MSAQ), IPQ. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Normality checked using Shapiro–Wilk test. \\  & \(\bullet\) & MANOVA to test the null hypothesis for normally distributed data. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Non-parametric methods to test the null hypotheses for non-normally distributed data. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Data for groups involved were checked for having similar distributions, and for satisfying the Assumption of Homogeneity of Variances (AHV). \\  & \(\bullet\) & If assumptions were met, Kruskal-Wallis method was used to find whether there were any statistically significant results. \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] et al. [55] \\ \end{tabular}  } & \(\bullet\) & Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q, version 4.1). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Completion time for each WST task. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Wheelchair Confidence Scale (WheelCon) version 2.0. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Assistive Technology Outcomes Profile for Mobility. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Life-Space Assessment (LSA). \\  & \(\bullet\) & Normality was tested for all outcomes using the Kologorov–Smirnov (KS) test. \\  & \(\bullet\) & Between-group comparisons were made using a linear mixed model, with subject as random effect, pre/post evaluation as fixed, repeated effect, and simulator \\  & \(\bullet\) & Training/control as fixed effect. \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] et al. [38] \\ \end{tabular}  } & \(\bullet\) & To assess differences in driving performances, driving ability, usability, \\  & \(\bullet\) & The number of collisions. \\  & \(\bullet\) & The driving speed estimated by the time of completion.