Usability and validity of a virtual reality cognitive assessment tool for pediatric traumatic brain injury.
Jiabin Shen, Christine Koterba, Julie Samora and 6 others
PMID 36048061WHAT IT FOUND
A VR game assessing executive function was well-tolerated and showed modest reliability for working memory and inhibition, but poor flexibility scores and weak validity against parent reports.
It is not yet ready for clinical use.
Key findings
01The VR tool showed modest test-retest reliability and concurrent validity for inhibitory control and working memory, but the cognitive flexibility task had poor reliability and no significant correlation with standard measures.
02The VR tool had small effect sizes for distinguishing children with TBI from those with orthopedic injuries, which was smaller than the effect sizes found for the NIH Toolbox and BRIEF-2 measures.
03There were no significant correlations between the VR-CAT tasks and parent-reported executive function on the BRIEF-2 for the overall sample.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small (54 children) and not powered for statistical analysis. The study design was cross-sectional with only two visits, limiting the assessment of reliability. The VR tasks were fantasy-based rather than realistic, which may not reflect real-world executive function. The tool is currently only available on a mobile station in clinical settings, not at home. Data on prior VR or video game experience was not collected, which may have influenced usability results.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high satisfaction and motivation scores as evidence that the VR tool is clinically accurate. The study found that while children liked the game, it had poor reliability for cognitive flexibility and did not correlate with parent reports, meaning it is not yet a valid substitute for standard assessments.