From engagement to development: teacher- and parent-rated changes following virtual Reality–Based training in children with special educational needs

Virtual reality (VR) has increasingly been examined in educational and rehabilitation settings, where its immersive and interactive practice may support children with special educational needs (SEN). This study examined how teacher and parent ratings changed before and after a VR-based training program using a four-domain conceptual framework (motor, cognitive-behavioral, emotional, and social). A single-group, mixed-source pretest–posttest design enrolled 130 children with SEN (Greece n = 100; Poland n = 30; 7–18 years), spanning ADHD, dyspraxia, orthopedic impairments, muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, and mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities. Teachers and parents completed parallel 20-item observation checklists, each rated 1–5, before and after the program. Complete paired data were available for 127 (teacher form) and 129 children (parent form). Internal consistency was high at posttest (total α ≈ 0.99 on both forms) but lower and more variable at pretest (total α = 0.90–0.92; some subscales as low as 0.71). Paired-samples t-tests, confirmed by Wilcoxon tests, showed large pre–post increases in ratings across every domain for teachers ( d = 1.46–1.73) and parents ( d = 1.34–1.69). Pretest totals fell below the scale midpoint (teacher M = 2.45; parent M = 2.71) and rose into the moderate-to-high range; ratings increased for 91.3% of children on the teacher form and 96.1% on the parent form. Teacher and parent ratings converged closely ( r = 0.91; ICC = 0.91), though teachers reported slightly larger gains than parents ( M = 1.66 vs. 1.44). An exploratory factor analysis did not recover four distinct factors; both forms showed a dominant general dimension. Therefore, the four domains are treated as a conceptual organization rather than as validated subscales. Rated change varied across diagnostic categories, but diagnosis was almost completely confounded with country, so the comparison remains exploratory. Because the design has no control group and relies on unblinded ratings from study-specific instruments, the findings are read as preliminary, exploratory pre–post change associated with the program, not as evidence that VR training caused the change. Controlled studies with blinded or objective outcomes are required to confirm these findings.