Mixed-methods study of 15 speech-language pathologists' acceptance, barriers, and enablers of using an immersive VR kitchen environment for communication rehabilitation
How this was rated
Pre-specified mixed-methods design with 15 SLP participants - small but adequate for thematic saturation in qualitative work. Peer-reviewed in Disability and Rehabilitation (Taylor & Francis, established peer-reviewed rehabilitation journal). The study uses validated System Usability Scale and motion-sickness measures alongside semi-structured interviews. Limitations: single-site recruitment (Australia, University of Queensland), single VR scenario (kitchen), single-session evaluation - so the acceptability findings may not generalize to longer-term clinical use or to different VR scenarios.
Ratings use a simplified four-tier scheme (High, Moderate, Low, Very Low) informed by the GRADE working group. Learn more about how studies are rated.
Fifteen speech-language pathologists participated in everyday-life communication activities inside an immersive VR kitchen environment, then completed system-usability and motion-sickness surveys plus semi-structured interviews. System usability was average; motion sickness was low. The qualitative analysis identified five themes - attitude toward VR in communication rehabilitation, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and clinical adoption barriers and enablers. SLPs were broadly positive about VR's potential as an ecologically valid communication-rehab tool while identifying real-world implementation barriers.
A peer-reviewed mixed-methods study showing that speech-language pathologists are broadly positive about using immersive VR for communication rehabilitation - rating system usability as average and reporting low motion sickness after hands-on use - while identifying concrete clinical-adoption barriers. Useful evidence for product teams designing VR for SLP, for procurement teams evaluating clinician readiness, and for clinicians making the case to administrators that VR is a credible adjunct. Does NOT measure patient outcomes - this is a clinician-acceptance study.
Key findings
- 15 speech-language pathologists participated in communication activities typical of daily life within an immersive VR kitchen environment, then completed system-usability and motion-sickness surveys plus semi-structured interviews
- System Usability Scale (SUS) scores were average - VR was workable but not effortless for clinicians at first contact
- Motion sickness symptoms were low after interaction with the VR system - addressing a long-standing concern in clinical VR deployment
- Qualitative analysis identified five themes: attitude toward VR in communication rehabilitation, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and clinical adoption barriers and enablers
- SLPs were broadly positive about VR's ecological-validity affordances - the ability to simulate enriched, ecologically valid environments where sensory stimulation can be controlled
- Clinical adoption barriers identified included training time, hardware cost and logistics, scenario library limitations, and clinical workflow integration
- The VR system used was a custom immersive kitchen environment, NOT Therapy withVR
Background
Speech-language pathologists working in communication rehabilitation have long faced a translation gap: clinic-based role-play cannot replicate the ecologically valid environments where their clients need to function. Immersive VR has been proposed as a way to close that gap. However, the clinical-adoption literature for VR in communication rehab is thin - most VR-for-SLP work focuses on patient outcomes, not on whether clinicians actually find the technology workable, useful, and intent-to-use. Without clinician-acceptance evidence, VR scenarios may be developed but not deployed.
What the researchers did
15 speech-language pathologists were recruited and asked to participate in everyday-life communication activities within an immersive VR kitchen environment. After the VR exposure, participants completed structured measures (System Usability Scale, motion-sickness symptom inventory) and semi-structured interviews. The interview transcripts were analyzed thematically.
What they found
- System Usability Scale (SUS): average scores - VR was workable but not effortless for SLPs at first contact.
- Motion sickness: symptoms were low - addressing a long-standing concern in clinical VR.
- Five qualitative themes emerged: attitude toward VR in communication rehab; perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use; intention to use; clinical adoption barriers and enablers.
- SLPs were broadly positive about VR’s ecological-validity affordances and the ability to control sensory stimulation as needed.
- Clinical adoption barriers identified: training time, hardware cost and logistics, scenario library limitations, workflow integration.
Why this matters
For product teams, procurement teams, and clinicians making adoption decisions, this paper offers a peer-reviewed evidence base on clinician acceptance specifically. The findings map cleanly onto adoption blockers product teams can design around (training time, scenario breadth, workflow integration) and onto expectation-setting for procurement (average usability at first contact, not excellent). For clinicians wanting to argue to administrators that VR is professionally accepted, this paper provides published support.
Limitations
- Single-site Australian sample (University of Queensland) - generalization to other regulatory and clinical contexts (US Medicare, NHS, European SLT systems) is not directly established.
- Single VR scenario (kitchen) - acceptability of other scenario types (social-communication, voice, articulation) not tested.
- Single-session evaluation - longer-term acceptance, training-time, and integration findings would require a longitudinal follow-up.
- 15 SLPs - reasonable for qualitative saturation but small for quantitative usability inference.
- One author has industry affiliation (Katana Simulations) - readers should weigh this when interpreting positive framings of VR.
- No patient outcomes measured - this is a clinician-acceptance study only.
Implications for practice
For product teams designing VR for SLP, this study's themes map directly onto adoption blockers worth designing around: training time, hardware logistics, scenario library breadth, and workflow integration. For procurement teams, it provides peer-reviewed evidence that clinicians at first contact rate VR usability as average rather than excellent - a useful expectation-setter. For clinicians making the case to administrators that VR is a credible communication-rehab adjunct, this paper offers professional-society-grade evidence of clinician openness alongside honest acknowledgement of practical hurdles. Note: the study does not measure patient outcomes. Do not cite it as efficacy evidence.
Cite this study
If you reference this study in your work, the canonical citation formats are:
@article{vaezipour2022,
author = {Vaezipour, A. and Aldridge, D. and Koenig, S. and Theodoros, D. and Russell, T.},
title = {'It's really exciting to think where it could go': a mixed-method investigation of clinician acceptance, barriers and enablers of virtual reality technology in communication rehabilitation},
journal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1080/09638288.2021.1895333},
url = {https://withvr.app/evidence/studies/vaezipour-2022}
}TY - JOUR
AU - Vaezipour, A.
AU - Aldridge, D.
AU - Koenig, S.
AU - Theodoros, D.
AU - Russell, T.
TI - 'It's really exciting to think where it could go': a mixed-method investigation of clinician acceptance, barriers and enablers of virtual reality technology in communication rehabilitation
JO - Disability and Rehabilitation
PY - 2022
DO - 10.1080/09638288.2021.1895333
UR - https://withvr.app/evidence/studies/vaezipour-2022
ER - Know of research that should be in this hub? If a relevant peer-reviewed study is not listed here, send the reference to hello@withvr.app. The hub is kept up to date as the literature grows.
Funding & independence
Affiliations: RECOVER Injury Research Center, Faculty of Health and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. One author (Sebastian Koenig) is affiliated with Katana Simulations Pty Ltd (Adelaide, Australia) - this is a meaningful industry affiliation that readers should be aware of when evaluating the paper. Specific funding sources not extracted in the abstract excerpt available for this summary. No withVR BV involvement in funding, study design, or authorship. Summary prepared independently by withVR using the published peer-reviewed paper. The VR kitchen environment used in the study is NOT Therapy withVR or Research withVR; it is a custom immersive VR system.