User-Centered Evaluation of a Virtual Environment Training System: Utility of User Perception Measures

This study assessed the utility of measures of Self-efficacy (SelfEfficacy) and Perceived VE efficacy (PVEefficacy) for quantifying how effective VEs are in procedural task training. SelfEfficacy and PVEefficacy have been identified as affective construct potentially underlying VE efficacy that is not evident from user task performance. The motivation for this study is to establish subjective measures of VE efficacy and investigate the relationship between PVEefficacy, SelfEfficacy and User task performance. Results demonstrated different levels of prior experience in manipulating 3D objects in gaming or computer environment (LOE3D) effects on task performance and user perception of VE efficacy. Regression analysis revealed LOE3D, SelfEfficacy, PVEefficacy explain significant portions of the variance in VE efficacy. Results of the study provide further evidence that task performance may share relationships with PVEefficacy and SelfEfficacy, and that affective constructs, such as PVEefficacy, and SelfEfficacy may serve as alternative, subjective measures of task performance that account for VE efficacy.

[1]  Thérèse Bouffard-Bouchard,et al.  Influence of Self-Efficacy on Performance in a Cognitive Task , 1990 .

[2]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  The influence of self-efficacy and working memory capacity on problem solving efficiency , 2009 .

[3]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[4]  Alvin Y. Wang,et al.  Predictors of web-student performance: the role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  Samson Habte Tesfazgi.  Survey on Behavioral Observation Methods in Virtual Environments , 2003 .

[6]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[7]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Situation awareness and attention allocation measures for quantifying telepresence experiences in teleoperation , 2004 .

[8]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Mediating intimacy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships , 2005, CHI.

[9]  Michal Lahav,et al.  Virtual guiding avatar: an effective procedure to reduce simulator sickness in virtual environments , 2004, CHI.

[10]  Michael J. Smith,et al.  Usability evaluation and interface design : cognitive engineering, intelligent agents and virtual reality , 2001 .

[11]  Thomas Hill,et al.  Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. , 1987 .

[12]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[13]  Borworn Papasratorn,et al.  The Effects of Self-efficacy and Attitude on E-learning Outcomes , 2006 .

[14]  Jerry Isdale.  Introduction to VR technology , 2003, IEEE Virtual Reality, 2003. Proceedings..

[15]  R. Moreno,et al.  Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[16]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  A Review of Presence and Performance in Virtual Environments , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[17]  Jim X. Chen,et al.  A Model for Understanding How Virtual Reality Aids Complex Conceptual Learning , 1999, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[18]  Saeid Nahavandi,et al.  Computer-simulated Environment (VE) for training : challenge of efficacy evaluation , 2008 .

[19]  Fred D. Davis.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[20]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  Towards CyberPsychology: Mind, Cognition and Society in the Internet Age. , 2001 .

[21]  Marc M. Sebrechts,et al.  HANDBOOK OF VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS , 2014 .