Search results

Objective The present scoping review aims to transform the diverse field of research on the effects of mixed reality-based training on performance in manual assembly tasks into comprehensive statements about industrial needs for and effects of mixed reality-based training. Background Technologies such as augmented and virtual reality, referred to as mixed reality, are seen as promising media for training manual assembly tasks. Nevertheless, current literature shows partly contradictory results, which is due to the diversity of the hardware used, manual assembly tasks as well as methodological approaches to investigate the effects of mixed reality-based training. Method Following the methodological approach of a scoping review, we selected 24 articles according to predefined criteria and analyzed them concerning five key aspects: (1) the needs in the industry for mixed reality-based training, (2) the actual use and classification of mixed reality technologies, (3) defined measures for evaluating the outcomes of mixed reality-based training, (4) findings on objectively measured performance and subjective evaluations, as well as (5) identified research gaps. Results Regarding the improvement of performance and effectiveness through mixed reality-based training, promising results were found particularly for augmented reality-based training, while virtual reality-based training is mostly—but not consistently—as good as traditional training. Application Mixed reality-based training is still not consistently better, but mostly at least as good as traditional training. However, depending on the use case and technology used, the training outcomes in terms of assembly performance and subjective evaluations show promising results of mixed reality-based training.

AbstractDisruptive behavior in adolescents is burdensome and may continue into adulthood if left unidentified. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) can screen for disruptive behavior, but its psychometric properties in high‐risk samples and ability to predict delinquency warrant further investigation. In 1022 adolescents, we investigated the predictive validity (on average 1.9 years after screening) of the self‐reported SDQ on disruptive behavior disorders and delinquency, measured with multi‐informant questionnaires and structured interviews. We compared three scoring methods: total, subscale, and dysregulation profile scoring. In this high‐risk sample, SDQ subscale scores predicted disruptive behavior outcomes best. Predictive values for the specific types of delinquency were small. Concluding, the SDQ can be used in high‐risk settings for early identification of youth with disruptive behavior.