Baccalaureate nursing students completed AI-generated virtual reality simulations, then rated their acceptance of the technology on the UTAUT instrument. Acceptance was above neutral overall, but not evenly: how easy the technology felt to use scored well clear of the midpoint, while social encouragement to use it did not.
What was measured
UTAUT, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, asks about four separate reasons a person might take up a technology. The eighteen items divide between them, and each is rated from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree.
| Construct | Items | What it captures |
|---|---|---|
| PE Performance Expectancy | Q1–Q6 | Whether the technology helps you do the task better |
| SI Social Influence | Q7–Q10 | Whether people who matter to you encourage it |
| EE Effort Expectancy | Q11–Q15 | Whether it feels easy to learn and use |
| FC Facilitating Conditions | Q16–Q18 | Whether support is there when something goes wrong |
What was found
Each construct was compared against the scale midpoint of 3, the point at which a respondent neither agrees nor disagrees. Three of the four sit above it. One does not.
Effort Expectancy is the clear result. At 3.74, with an interval of 3.45 to 4.03 and d = 1.23, students found the technology easy to use, and the interval is nowhere near the midpoint. Social Influence is the clear non-result. At 3.08, interval 2.62 to 3.54, p = .7215, it is indistinguishable from neutral: students did not report that people around them encouraged VR for learning. Performance Expectancy (3.43) and Facilitating Conditions (3.44) sit modestly above the midpoint.
With 19 respondents every interval is wide, and the gap between "above neutral" and "not above neutral" is narrower than it looks. Read the intervals, not the ranking.
Where to go next
The analysis
Every construct and item, with intervals, effect sizes, reliability and the assumption checks.
Live