Parsons, Thomas D. “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety and Specific Phobias.” Semanticscholar.org, University of North Texas, USA, 2015

From Digital Culture & Society

[edit] “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety and Specific Phobias”

The article “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety and Specific Phobias” written by Thomas D. Parsons is very interesting as it is a bit different from the previous articles in the Wiki. This article discussed the problems of a previous article by Powers and Emmelkamp. Parsons discussed the disadvantages of Powers and Emmelkamp article and why it failed to find accurate information for the effectiveness of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET). Parsons also explained how to make VRET studies work more successfully so accurate data can be acquired from them. He displayed specific articles that were believed to have some inaccurate approaches to VRET studies and articles that used inaccurate studies as comparison or sources.

Parsons states the two most common problem he found with a lot of VRET studies are, “1) When sample size is viewed as the number of studies, the power to detect a given moderating variable relationship in the meta-analysis may be low; 2) with small numbers of studies, the moderators may be confounded with each other.” His second reason was his biggest issue with Powers and Emmelkamp’s article. I agree with Parsons’ opinion on this as the samples used in Powers and Emmelkamp’s article were quite small and the criteria they used to find the articles had some discrepancies. The problem with the use of same studies is it is very ineffective in proving evidence for hypotheses. Parsons provided some suggestions for future studies to use so they can accurately dissect VRET and find the true effect it has for those with mental disorders.

Parsons’ first suggestions were to moderate the population characteristics. For a lot of the studies done on VRET, many of the participants were generalized into one group but suffered from different disorders. VRET should be tailored to the specific disorder since someone with a phobia of heights would not benefit from a simulation of paranoia. Although, in theory, the simulations may seem a bit similar, since someone could be paranoid when facing heights, it does not correlate to paranoia disorder. Parson explained, “For study findings to be generalizable to the population, the sample must be representative of the population from which it is drawn. It is important for VRET researchers to address whether subjects in the different groups are similar in relevant attributes before and during the treatment.”

The second suggestion regarded the outcome measures of the studies. Parsons’ explanation of outcome measures is like the moderation of the population. The outcomes should be generalized to the specific cases. If the participants have the same disorder and have similar outcomes, then it can show the effectiveness of the VRET. Parsons explained that the outcomes should have evidence provided to support the study’s claims. The study should derive a relationship for a variable of interest and compare them to other variables (i.e. having the participants use a number scale to rate their anxiety.) The variable should have concrete validation to rate the effectiveness of the study by having the participants evaluate their experience. The study conductors should record their responses and assess the participants to evaluate the effects of the study.

The third suggestion is to have a specific way of reporting results. The studies would benefit from having a system where they can evaluate the study the same way every time. This way it would test the participant’s experience, and nothing could be misconstrued. In most studies, using quantitative qualities to test efficiency is the most beneficial. The use of qualitative means would be more meaningful to help the participant. Both qualitative and quantitative are important to test the study and help the participant. The final suggestion is to improve the presence and immersion of the studies. The best way to gain feedback would be to survey the participants of their experience and see where improvement can be found. This way the participant can give more information on how the study influenced them and how it may have helped them.

Parsons provided some ways VRET studies can be more effective and how future studies should be conducted to find better results. This article would be very eye-opening to those in the field of VR and mental health since it provided information to have better experiments. I agree with Parsons’ ideas and believe this could potentially bring more accurate studies. The article provided new insight on testing which may advance studies and acquire new formation on VR or mental health. I consider this very important to VRET since it could potentially help provide those with mental disorders to get the help and support they need.