Cited by 116Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Outcomes associated with virtual reality in psychological interventions: where are we now?

Open access
Turner, Wesley A., Casey, Leanne M.·2014·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

The impending commercial release of affordable VR systems is likely to accelerate both the opportunity and demand for VR applications that specifically target psychological conditions. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of outcomes associated with VR psychological interventions and to examine the methodological rigour used in these interventions. Literature search was conducted via Ovid, ProQuest Psychology Journals and ScienceDirect (Psychology) databases. Interventions were required to: be published between 1980 to 2014; use a randomised controlled trial design; be published in a scholarly journal; focused primarily on psychological/behavioural intervention; include validated measures; include reported means and standard deviations of outcome measures; and include one group with clinical/subclinical disorders, syndromes or distressing behaviours. Thirty eligible studies were identified. Random effects meta-analysis found an overall moderate effect size for VR interventions. Individual meta-analyses found an overall large effect size against non-intervention wait-lists and an overall moderate effect size against active interventions. No correlation was found between treatment outcomes and methodological rigour. Limitations may include limited study numbers, the use of a single coder, a need for more in-depth analyses of variation in form VR intervention, and omission of presence as a moderating factor. The current review supports VR interventions as efficacious, promising forms of psychological treatment. Use of reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT and CONSORT-EHEALTH statements should promote greater emphasis on methodological rigour, providing a firm foundation for the further development of clinical VR applications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.10.003

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turner, W. A., & Casey, L. M.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Turner, Wesley A.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
634-644
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079610064
Cited by
116
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
virtual reality, psychological intervention, treatment efficacy, methodological quality, randomized controlled trials, presence, reporting guidelines, behavior change
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Mental Disorders, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review