Overview of Serious Gaming and Virtual Reality

  • Todd P. ChangEmail author
  • Joshua M. Sherman
  • James M. Gerard


Serious Games and Virtual Reality (VR) have been accelerating in their quality and ubiquity within healthcare simulation, and the variety of technological innovations is outpacing the healthcare research community’s ability to evaluate their effects as an intervention or their utility in simulating an environment for research. This chapter seeks to highlight unique advantages and challenges when using serious games or VR for healthcare research that are different than those encountered with other simulation modalities such as manikins, simulated/standardized patients etc. First, we define the terminology surrounding the concept of serious games and VR, including the advantages and disadvantages for their utility in answering important healthcare research questions. Second, we provide insight into optimal models of research that are suited for serious games or VR. Finally, we describe the development process for researchers to integrate research methodologies during the development phase.


Serious game Gaming Virtual reality Screen-based simulation 


  1. 1.
    Susi T, Johannesson M, Backlund P. Serious games – an overview. New York: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bedwell WL, Pavlas D, Heyne K, Lazzara EH, Salas E. Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: an empirical study. Simul Gaming. 2012;43(6):729–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang T, Pusic MV, Gerard JL. Screen-based simulation and virtual reality. In: Cheng A, Grant VJ, editors. Comprehensive healthcare simulation – pediatrics. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 686.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang TP, Weiner D. Screen-based simulation and virtual reality for pediatric emergency medicine. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2016;17(3):224–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellaway R. Reflecting on multimedia design principles in medical education. Med Educ. 2011;45:766–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curtis MT, DiazGranados D, Feldman M. Judicious use of simulation technology in continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012;32(4):255–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng A, Auerbach M, Hunt EA, Chang TP, Pusic M, Nadkarni V, Kessler D. Designing and conducting simulation-based research. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):1091–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook D, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Amer J Med. 2006;119(166):e7–e16.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(3):455–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fonte M, Oulego-Erroz I, Nadkarni L, Sanchez-Santos L, Iglesias-Vasquez A, Rodriguez-Nunez A. A randomized comparison of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope to the standard laryngoscopy for intubation by pediatric residents in simulated easy and difficult infant airway scenarios. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27(5):398–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kessler DO, Walsh B, Whitfill T, et al. Disparities in adherence to pediatric sepsis guidelines across a spectrum of emergency departments: a multicenter, cross-sectional observational in situ simulation study. J Emerg Med. 2016;50(3):403–415.e401-403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cicero MX, Whitfill T, Munjal K, et al. 60 seconds to survival: a pilot study of a disaster triage video game for prehospital providers. Am J Disaster Med. 2017;12(2):75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerard JM, Scalzo AJ, Borgman MA, et al. Validity evidence for a serious game to assess performance on critical pediatric emergency medicine scenarios. Simul Healthc. 2018;13:168–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loh CS, Anantachai A, Byun J, Lenox J. Assessing what players learned in serious games: in situ data collection, information trails, and quantitative analysis. Paper Presented at: 10th International Conference on Computer Games: AI, Animation, Mobile, Educational & Serious Games (CGAMES 2007); 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooke JSUS. a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, McClelland IL, Weerdmeester B, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996. p. 189–94.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirakowski J, Corbett M. SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol. 1993;24(3):210–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1988; Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):636–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Downing SM. Threats to the validity of locally developed multiple-choice tests in medical education: construct-irrelevant variance and construct underrepresentation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7(3):235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerr D. Using data mining results to improve educational video game design. J Educ Data Min. 2015;7(3):1–17.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cleophas TJ. Interaction in crossover studies: a modified analysis with more sensitivity. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;34(3):236–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd P. Chang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joshua M. Sherman
    • 2
  • James M. Gerard
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Emergency MedicineChildren’s Hospital Los Angeles/University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Regional Medical DirectorPM PediatricsLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Emergency MedicineSSM Health Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital/St. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations