Assessing the utility of a virtual reality arson crime scene investigation simulation

Abstract

This study examines the utility of a virtual reality (VR) arson crime scene investigation simulation developed by the Abu Dhabi Police service. Utilizing qualitative interviews with participants from the Saif Bin Zayed Academy for Security and Policing Sciences, the study captures views of the VR training experience with an emphasis on learning effectiveness, engagement, skill acquisition, cost and time efficiency, and inclusivity and accessibility. The findings are discussed in the context of a theoretical framework provided by the technology acceptance model (TAM) and indicate high levels of engagement and immersion among the participants. Many expressed a preference for VR training over classroom training. Thus, the ‘perceived usefulness’ of the technology was high. The interviewees also reported significant perceived benefits in terms of acquiring procedural knowledge and skills. The immersive nature of the VR was identified as a key factor in its utility. The cost and time efficiencies driven by the capability to train multiple officers simultaneously without the need for physical resources and with fewer of the risks commonly associated with live training are also outlined. The study also identified limitations regarding the inclusivity and accessibility of the technology, including among individuals with disabilities. Nevertheless, the overall reception of the simulation was positive. The findings indicate that VR is widely accepted within the police service and has great potential for wider use to enhance training in other areas if it serves to deliver content focused on policies and practice.

INTRODUCTION

Police officers often criticize traditional training methods such as classroom instruction and online learning packages as ineffective (Honess 2016; Adams et al., 2017). Virtual reality (VR) technology has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing the realism and immersive nature of training environments, offering the potential to increase student engagement and increase the efficacy of police training by creating experiences that closely resemble real-life situations but without the associated risks. Despite these benefits, the adoption of VR technology in police training is just beginning, so the empirical evidence of its effectiveness is limited. Moreover, while VR offers a novel approach to training, it also presents new challenges, including technological limitations and negative effects on users, and there are outstanding questions regarding its cost-effectiveness in comparison with traditional training methods. In addition, policing is a notoriously resistant field in which innovation is often late to be adopted since police services tend to wait for substantial research proving the efficacy of a new technology before adopting it.

The Abu Dhabi Police (ADP) was one of the first services to embrace the use of VR as a training method (Hussain et al., 2023), having done so in areas outside the frequently studied field of firearms. Such early adoption is admirable and demonstrates a desire to embrace innovation, but it comes with inherent challenges, including evaluation of the utility of VR training that has been developed and deployed. It is, of course, crucial to assess the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of VR training and employees’ receptivity to its use as a replacement for, or supplement to traditional learning methods. In this study, we assess a single police VR training product by interviewing staff members involved in the development, delivery, and receipt of training using an arson crime scene investigation simulation. By analyzing the participants’ answers to questions based on the TAM, we determined the perceived usefulness, ease of use, immersive capabilities, and level of interactivity of the VR simulation and the overall acceptance of this new technology. In this way, we captured a wide range of perspectives on the training experience, including its perceived impact on learning, engagement, skill acquisition, cost and time efficiency, and accessibility and inclusivity, all of which are key aspects discussed in the literature on VR training.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature on VR as a training medium has tended to focus on the impact of the technology on student engagement, overall learning effectiveness, and skill acquisition, as well as issues related to cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and inclusivity. In the following discussion, we provide a brief overview of these themes in relation to our topic of interest and the current situation regarding the use of VR in policing and, specifically, crime scene investigation. This discussion provides the context for our examination of the arson VR crime scene investigation scenario.

Learning effectiveness and engagement

Over the past two decades, VR has emerged as a transformative tool in education and training, with meta-analyses outlining the capacity of the medium to increase learning effectiveness (Lee 1999; Hamilton et al., 2021), especially in situational teaching, such as in the vocational field (Babu et al., 2018; Parong and Mayer 2018; Hamilton et al., 2021). In this research, increased levels of motivation have been observed among students learning vocational processes using VR technology (Ruiz-Cantisani et al., 2020), thereby demonstrating its ability to enhance traditional teaching methods. The integration of VR into the classroom has also demonstrated its capacity to enhance student engagement significantly (Hamilton et al., 2021), as improved test scores (Webster 2016; Allcoat and von Mühlenen 2018; Lamb et al., 2018; Olmos-Raya et al., 2018; Sankaranarayanan et al., 2018; Rupp et al., 2019) and exam results (Johnston et al., 2018) have demonstrated.

The effect of technology on cognitive engagement is particularly evident during immersive experiences that involve acquiring procedural knowledge (Bharathi and Tucker 2015; Gutiérrez-Maldonado et al., 2015; Sankaranarayanan et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018; Yoganathan et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2023). This effect can even be observed in the context of mixed results about knowledge development (Riner et al., 2022). For example, recent research (Niedermayr et al., 2023) found that realistic interactions in VR training did not significantly impact learning outcomes but did enhance trainees’ engagement. In other words, while the realism of VR can improve engagement, its impact on learning outcomes is inconsistent. The mixed findings, which have been attributed to poor-quality studies, have undermined efforts to reach a consensus regarding the utility of the technology (Jensen and Konradsen 2018).

In any case, these findings indicate that the use of the medium does not guarantee positive outcomes. Therefore, the circumstances leading to success deserve careful consideration. The nature of the task, the characteristics of the learners, and, especially, the level of immersion provided by VR influence learning effectiveness and engagement. For example, a positive correlation has been observed between learning effectiveness and immersion, particularly in hands-on training scenarios (Lee et al., 2023). Similarly, immersive VR experiences that evoke positive emotions in learners appear to heighten their motivation and engagement (Makransky and Lilleholt 2018). This variability demonstrates that in seeking to attain the desired outcome for learning effectiveness, the impact of VR is contingent on the tailoring of products to the target group and ensuring that they are emotionally engaging and develop applicable skills.

Skill acquisition and application

VR also has the potential to enhance the acquisition of skills and their transfer to real-world situations. For instance, researchers have shown that the physical environment of the simulation and features such as the gamification of learning goals influence skill acquisition and real-world application (Alfred et al., 2015). Research has also provided evidence of the transfer of the locomotor capabilities practiced in VR, demonstrating that the skills learned can be retained and effectively applied outside the virtual realm (Kim et al., 2019). Research has also shown that skills acquired within VR have reduced errors caused by failures in human judgment (Siu et al., 2016). These results make clear that VR has the capacity to facilitate skill transfer across various physical domains in a manner that aids the long-term retention of the acquired capabilities (Markham et al., 2017), with positive impacts on acquisition, application, and retention.

Cost and time efficiency

The advent of VR has naturally prompted evaluation of its cost and time efficiency compared with traditional teaching methods. For instance, while VR training requires higher initial set-up costs than traditional forms of teaching, the investment becomes increasingly cost-effective over time because of the scalability and repeatability of the training (Farra et al., 2019). Thus, several studies have provided compelling evidence of the potential financial benefits (Farra et al., 2019). Similarly, the reduced time required to conduct and supervise VR training can mitigate any extra cost associated with it. Studies have also shown that VR can easily be integrated using mobile phones, thereby further reducing set-up costs (Miyawaki and Okabe 2019) and facilitating location-independent training, a key factor for professions such as policing that operate over a wide geographic area. Costs can also be reduced by increasing the speed and volume of training. For example, a recent meta-analysis affirmed that VR could enhance the efficiency of training delivery and, in turn, decrease overall costs while also improving the transferability of skills to real-world applications, thereby reducing the need for the repetition of training (Kaplan et al., 2019).

Accessibility and inclusivity

VR can also enhance the accessibility and inclusivity of training by expanding access to information and education that may otherwise be restricted. From a technological perspective, this expanded access is achieved through adaptions such as customized controllers, software (Dudley et al., 2023), and head-mounted displays (Jacinto and Kappler 2022) that expand the spectrum of the physical and cognitive needs to which the technology caters. Early studies investigating the use of VR technology to instruct neurodivergent students and those with behavioral disorders stressed that immersive experience is key to success (Muscott and Gifford 1994). Other scholars (Botha et al., 2023; Lowy et al., 2023) have since explored its potential to improve equity, diversity, and inclusivity among marginalized groups, particularly in less developed nations (Botha et al., 2023), indicating that improved value can facilitate equitable, diverse, and inclusive training for students from less-privileged backgrounds. Despite such adaptations, limitations remain with respect to the capacity of VR to accommodate the needs of students with physical disabilities and consider cultural design considerations (Jacinto and Kappler 2022). Such limitations can be addressed through a considered approach to the development of VR architecture and overall design in the preliminary stages (Johnson 2023; Zwoliński et al., 2023).

Challenges and limitations

As discussed, VR training presents challenges in the context of policing. The technology requires significant investment to design the instructional content (Freina and Ott 2015; Radianti et al., 2020), particularly when recreating complex human behaviors (Muscott and Gifford 1994), as well as technical support (Freina and Ott 2015; Radianti et al., 2020), either in-house or from a software provider, further increasing the cost. Users may also experience nausea known as ‘cyber-sickness’ (Freina and Ott 2015; Radianti et al., 2020) and other forms of discomfort when using the equipment (Abbas et al., 2020) that naturally impedes the acceptance of the technology. In police training, which is inherently dynamic, issues related to tracking users and locomotion can impose technological and developmental barriers (Zechner et al., 2023), especially in the context of high-pressure training such as firearms. Additional teacher training in the use of VR may also be required. Careful preparation during the design and implementation phases can mitigate these challenges (Atkinson et al., 2023).

Police training applications

Recent research on VR in policing has, as mentioned, concentrated on its application to firearms training (Muñoz et al., 2020), and it has proved effective in increasing shooting efficacy and enhancing decision-making in high-pressure scenarios. It has also been shown that VR can elicit the types and degrees of perceived stress and mental effort experienced in real-world policing incidents (Giessing 2021; Kleygrewe et al., 2024). Similarly, a study of police training using VR to increase stress among officers by simulating a car accident demonstrated the capacity of the technology to induce psychophysiological arousal and that the effect was more pronounced in less experienced officers, suggesting that the potential for VR to prepare such officers for early-career deployment is significant (Gamito et al., 2024).

VR has also been used to improve police decision-making, and studies have shown that it can increase cognitive capacity under stress (Zechner et al., 2023). Research on its ability to improve verbal communication, which is a key tool for all police officers, demonstrated that those taught using the medium communicated more effectively with autistic individuals (McCleery et al., 2020), dealt more effectively with the victims of hate crimes (Kishore et al., 2019), and, thanks to improved de-escalation skills, used force less frequently (Garcia et al., 2019) than those taught using other media. As a result, it has been suggested that VR can better equip officers to respond to the varied confrontational challenges they face than traditional training (Alanis and Pyram 2022) and improve multi-agency training by enabling multiple agencies to practice emergency responses together (Molka-Danielsen et al., 2018). Other areas of research have included the application of technology to improve officers’ surveillance and observation skills (Binsch et al., 2022). Notably, Adams et al. (2017) developed an early 2D VR simulator for training in how to interview children and reported that the officers trained using it better understood the protocols and practices than those who received conventional training.

Crime scene investigation training

Much of the research related to VR and its application on police crime scenes relates to scanning and recreation and, as such, is not directly relevant to its use as a training medium. In the training context, only a few studies have examined the use of VR for crime scene investigation. Articles in the closely related field of augmented reality make clear the potential of the technology to improve the decision-making and psychomotor skills that crime scene investigators must learn, particularly those related to fingerprinting, collecting evidence, and searching crime scenes (Wilkins et al., 2024). A recent study on this subject by Mayne and Green (2020) did examined specifically the use of VR in teaching crime scene investigation. They demonstrated the capacity of the technology to enhance the learning experience and increase students’ satisfaction and suggested that it can be cost-effective over the long term, though they also noted that students expressed concerns regarding the training environment and motion sickness.

The ADP’s VR training centre

To date, only one police service, the ADP, seems to have developed the internal resources and expertise necessary to create and implement VR training (Hussain et al., 2023). The ADP’s Virtual Training Centre (VTC) opened in 2020 as part of the Saif Bin Zayed Academy for Security and Policing Sciences in the United Arab Emirates. The VTC has created numerous VR simulations, including an arson crime scene investigation simulator. The simulations provide users with immersive scenarios that are accessed using a head-mounted display. The VR training is delivered in a bespoke room with six partitioned sections measuring 2 m by 2 m separated by LED floor lighting in which students participate in the simulation with trainers standing by to assist with technical issues.

The VTC developed the VR simulation for arson scenes in collaboration with the police service’s expert arson investigators. During the simulation, students examine an arson crime scene at a residential property. The aims of the scenario are, first, to help the students develop procedural knowledge regarding the clothing and equipment used to examine an arson crime scene. Figure 1 shows the tool selection screen that appears at the beginning of the scenario and from which students choose the necessary items to complete the simulated investigation.

Second, the training scenario is also intended to help students develop and test critical thinking skills by investigating the evidence at the scene to assess whether a fire was accidental or a crime. Students explore various rooms and items in the simulation to identify clues that point to a conclusion. Figures 2 and 3 show some of the rooms that can be accessed using VR.

Third, the simulation also helps students learn how to use equipment such as a crime scene camera, evidence-collection tools, and other items that are at their disposal in the simulator, which was designed to replicate the tools used by the police service. Students access the equipment to photograph key evidence and interact with and inspect assorted items, such as the bottle of liquid shown in Figure 4, which is positioned to raise suspicion that it may be flammable and was used to start the fire.

Lastly, the simulator helps students develop their reporting practices by completing a report at the conclusion of the simulation consistent with organizational policies and procedures. The VR also provides each student with a feedback report, an example of which appears in Figure 5.

Aims of the study

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the arson crime scene investigation simulation. We used the TAM as a framework to qualitatively assess police officers’ perceptions, use, and acceptance of VR technology and provide a holistic evaluation of its utility. Our work contributes valuable insights into the role of VR technology in police training generally and crime scene investigation particularly, about which there is a significant gap in the literature. The findings presented here can inform the development of useful, engaging, and efficient training solutions to prepare officers for the complexities of their roles, especially those involving crime scene investigation.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The technology acceptance model

The TAM (Davis 1989) serves as a framework for understanding individuals’ responses to and utilization of new technologies in organizational contexts. The model has recently been applied in both VR and policing contexts (Colvin and Goh 2005; Cakar 2011; Kurkinen 2013; Lindsay et al., 2014; Vrielink 2015; Abbas and Policek 2020) and, thus, is ideally suited to this study. We used this model to underpin the methodological design with a set of seven key factors identified as critical for technology acceptance (Davis 1989; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008): the perceived ease of use of the VR technology; its perceived usefulness, which is to say, its ability to enhance job performance; the perceived enjoyment of using it; interaction with it, which concerns the interactivity offered and relates to both usability and satisfaction; the intention to use it in the future; imagination, which relates to envisioning alternate applications of it; and immersion, which is to say, the depth of engagement with the technology.

To contextualize the existing literature, we consider the relationship of these factors to learning effectiveness and engagement, skill acquisition, cost and time efficiency, accessibility and inclusivity, and challenges and limitations. By approaching the study in this way, we were able to perform a holistic assessment of the efficacy of the VR arson crime scene investigation grounded in the literature, keyed to the technology examined, and in greater depth than a simple comparison of VR and traditional methodologies.

Data and method

We used a qualitative interview methodology to gather views of the arson VR scenario. A limitation of our method is that we only interviewed employees involved in the development and receipt of VR training, so there was no control group for direct comparison. Additionally, we did not measure learning outcomes or skill retention quantitatively over time, so we could not ascertain categorically the long-term impact of using the arson crime scene investigation VR. Therefore, our findings provide only subjective perceptions regarding its utility. We will discuss these issues further when presenting our conclusions.

We obtained the authorization for gathering the data from the interviewees from the head of the Saif Bin Zayed Academy for Security and Policing Sciences. The academy placed no limits on our selection of interview participants, so we were able to conduct interviews across a broad spectrum of the employees within the ADP VTC, a total of ten staff members ranging from civilians to a lieutenant colonel. We also interviewed seven (39%) of eighteen police employees undertaking a live VR training session using the simulation, whom the members of the research team chose at random. For confidentiality and privacy, each participant was assigned a unique identifier. The interviewees are listed in Table 1.

The interviews consisted of twenty-seven questions inspired by the TAM following similar previous research (Pletz 2021; Schatz et al., 2021). These are listed in the  Appendix. These questions were tailored to encapsulate the key themes from the literature review and elicit in-depth responses through an open-ended approach. The interviews were conducted on-site at the VR training facility. For the participants undertaking training, the interviews took place immediately following their VR sessions, with each interview averaging 45 minutes. The interviews were recorded using portable recording devices and conducted in Arabic, then later transcribed into English.

We analyzed the transcriptions thematically using NVivo based on the predefined themes listed in our theoretical framework and then identified any emergent themes not previously identified. This approach allowed for a structured and in-depth examination of the data, thereby ensuring a thorough assessment of the participants’ perspectives (Braun and Clarke 2006). The analysis culminated in the generation of a coded dataset that was subsequently compiled into a report for further examination, refinement, and integration into the final article (Braun and Clarke 2006).

FINDINGS

Perceived learning effectiveness and engagement

The utilization of VR technology in vocational training is highly engaging and effective. However, since the circumstances associated with its success are varied, we explore the results of the interviews with participants in the training here to ascertain their views of the overall effectiveness of the VR simulation examined. According to the TAM, the realism and immersive nature of the scenarios presented account for the success of VR-based training. The users in our study repeatedly noted the lifelike quality of the VR environment, which, they suggested, created a deep sense of immersion during their training sessions, captivating them and leaving some eager to repeat the training:

In a way, it made you feel that you are really in a real situation. (A1)

I would say it is nearly eighty, ninety percent close to real life. (A2)

I was so engaged that it went very quickly. (A1)

I was very engaged, and I think it is the best way to conduct training. (A8)

I had a captain from Al-Ain; he came back here the other week and he said to me, “I want to do it again and again.” (A11)

Not only were these staff members deeply engaged in the immersive environment, but many (N = 9) highlighted the usefulness of the medium, which is a further key component of technology acceptance, indicating that the VR enabled them to increase their knowledge and awareness of the subject at hand:

It had a big impact; it was very beneficial. (A7)

It’s helped in increasing my skills and knowledge. (A1)

It is very useful, especially when it comes to field practice. (A6)

I have learned a lot myself... I have gained a lot of information and knowledge about fires, how to deal with them, where it started, and what evidence I can use and so on. (A4)

The skills could easily be applied in real fire investigations. (A7)

Several of the participants (N = 4) also highlighted the benefits of VR in comparison with traditional classroom-based training:

It is much better than learning in the classroom. For me personally, I can never sit in a classroom. I would get bored out of my mind. I see a lot of people bored because, if you are sitting in a classroom without any interaction and just listening to one person, you will get bored eventually. In VR, you are doing something. You are physically learning instead of looking at a presentation. It is easier to remember what you did. (A5)

I preferred VR because it involved the students much more. Most of the time in the classroom, someone would be playing on their phone or dozing off, sleeping in the back. (A8)

Being in a classroom where someone just talks for eight hours, looking at text and maybe pictures—it gets to be too much. But, having the hands-on experience, people pay more attention. (A9)

Several of the participants (N = 3) described in detail why they found this VR product and the general approach by the department especially useful and effective.

In the past, people were learning theoretically. We train them in a practical VR environment, and then we test them. We can also test how much they have learned from the VR study and how it affected their decision-making. (A4)

It works because it takes the participant through the processes. Investigators do one, two, three, and so on and [the trainees] forget it in five minutes. But when they go through the processes in the room, looking for clues themselves in the VR, I think it is better. It helps them retain information because they have lived through it. (A13)

Such statements further explain the technology’s usefulness, and, because of the positive views, several of the participants (N = 5) described a noticeable shift in the employees’ openness to and attitudes toward the use of VR in the police service:

From my experience of VR in the past two years, I can see that the employees have more interest in using VR. (A9)

We do naturally become overwhelmed or skeptical about things. But the more you use it, the more open you are to the experience in general, and I have seen that throughout the VR training. (A14)

Skill acquisition

It was also evident that the usefulness of VR extended to skill acquisition. When asked, many of the participants (N = 9) indicated that they or the students whom they trained were acquiring new procedural skills:

I learned, like, how to enter the crime scene and, for example, how to choose the right equipment when going to an investigation, how to preserve the crime scene and walk on a safe path. Like, when I went and found the bottle, I learned how it should be lifted, how I should look at it and examine it, for example. So, I had to focus on so many things at the same time. (A3)

I learned that, so, the first thing I needed to do was put on the goggles and face mask so that I did not inhale poisonous gases, and to protect my eyes from the heat. I also wore gloves, so I do not leave any fingerprints and to protect myself. (A1)

The participants also demonstrated significant decision-making skills, especially considering that none were criminal investigators or arson specialists. Those who undertook the training (N = 7) learned to develop working hypotheses about the scenario as they progressed:

I found the bottle that had the accelerant. The corner of the bed was burned, and there was a hole. I first looked at the desk, and it had a laptop on it. I thought at the beginning it could be like an electrical fire because next to it there’s a curtain that was burning. But then I noticed the empty safe, which was open. And then I realized that this was a robbery. It wasn’t a normal fire. So, the fire was caused to hide any evidence because the fire was on the corner of the bed. What would make a fire go there? (A10)

I went to the bedroom, where the fire was in the building. It helped me come to the idea that this room was robbed because I saw that the vault was open and it was cleared out, and then there was a fire. So, I was able to conclude that this was arson, and it was to cover up a robbery. (A2)

In addition to procedural and decision-making skills, many of the participants (N = 6) also mentioned learning to apply skills related to the technology or equipment provided, which mirrored that used in real-world policing. This interactive capability is a further key component of the TAM:

When taking photographs, I realized we should maintain a proper distance from the things that we want to photograph, such as a vehicle. We shouldn’t be too close, and we shouldn’t be too far, so we can get the best amount of detail possible. (A4)

I went to the bedroom and used the flashlight to try to find where the fire originated. When I found the cause of the fire, I took a photograph, and then I collected the evidence. (A2)

These skills could easily be applied in real fire investigations. For example, in the simulation, I didn’t know how to use the camera, but now, in a real-life investigation, I would know how to use the real camera. (A7)

Cost and time efficiency

Cost and time efficiency are key considerations in perceptions of the usefulness of VR. Many of the participants (N = 10) indicated that the impact of the VR training, particularly in terms of economic, time, and resource savings, was significant.

It has a big financial impact; it saves time, money, and practice. (A2)

The economic benefits were an issue that was repeatedly cited (N = 6), with the consensus being that, although the initial set-up costs may be high, the long-term financial benefits justify the expense:

The one-time investment might be a little more than your normal one-time training cost, but, in the long term, it will save you a lot of money. (A14)

For training sessions, for anything, you will have to pay a lot—the charges, the venue, the trainer, and so on. If you invest that in VR, you can use the same set-up, the same devices, for an infinite number of trainings and resources, and it’s a one-time investment. It might be more than your normal training cost, but, long term, it will save you a lot of money. (A15)

Money-wise, it costs less because, as I said before, it’s like it’s going to cost you much more money to get people in the field and to get a professional trainer. It’s going to cost money for the trainer, money for the equipment that we’re going to have. VR is just simple. You can do it at home or anywhere. (A9)

Some of the interviewees (N = 4) also mentioned that other costs associated with traditional constraints, such as the requirement for physical resources, classrooms, or training space and the time spent repeating scenario setup, were often significant, whereas VR enabled organizations to overcome these constraints:

It’s very cost-efficient. Because there’s some scenarios that you cannot perform in the field; they require a big space, big equipment, and weather conditions; everything costs a lot. In VR, you can just get that practice. (A16)

The fire scenario—before we were using, like, a room, and, after the exercise, we needed to paint it again to rebuild it. So, they cannot practice a lot. So now we build the environment of this room where we are training the staff, and we put in levels. And there’s also the eval report to check each one. So now we can let a lot of employees practice whereas, before, it was once a month. Now, they can practice every day; they can practice a lot with the VR. (A11)

The capability to train multiple individuals repeatedly and safely, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of delivering large training programs, was also frequently mentioned (N = 4):

Most of the training we can avoid safety risks most of the time. If we have arson investigation or a crime scene investigation, we don’t want a hundred students to go to the crime scene and pollute it. We just replicate the crime scene. (A13)

In the ADP, we were doing a lot of exercises costing a lot of time, money—and they cannot repeat the exercise, which increases dangers for the employee. So, now, when we are using VR, you can make the scenario challenging. You can change the technology; you can change the scenario. You can let a lot of employees practice any time; more practice with zero cost. (A12)

The most important thing is being able to train more people for less when it comes to having accessibility to the scenario in multiple different places at the same time without having to have a specialized trainer present in each of them, especially with the auto-evaluation that’s present in the scenario itself. It’s already been authenticated by the certified trainers. They don’t need to input anymore because everything is taken into consideration without having to have them everywhere, meaning more classes at the same time, in different places, at different times. (A15)

Accessibility and inclusivity

We also determined that, overall, the VR scenario training was open and accessible to a broad range of users across departments and agencies, including those with disabilities, irrespective of age or gender:

Anyone can use this training to give themselves awareness. (A8)

Everybody can have the advantage of using VR. If we just close the circle, then it will not reach other people. People prefer to use VR; they can enjoy it, even the older generation, and autistic people—they all like it. (A9)

However, there were some limitations on interactivity in terms of use of the technology by disabled users:

Some scenarios would be not possible to be conducted by [individuals with] certain disabilities because of the nature of the movement, but we can somehow alter the experience to maybe work for them just to give them a taste of the experience. (A16)

Several of the interviewees (N = 5) mentioned further potential issues regarding interaction, a key factor in the TAM, with respect to inclusivity, specifically gender. These concerns related to the need for trainers to exercise cultural sensitivity and the difficulty of ensuring an interactive and inclusive training environment while demonstrating such sensitivity in order to provide an effective training experience:

There is the modesty aspect within the tradition, the culture, and the religion. (A15)

I’m a male instructor, and there are many female students who come to me. I can’t touch her. I can’t go near her. So, I keep a safe distance between me and her. (A5)

Challenges, limitations, and recommendations

The mixed views identified regarding accessibility and inclusivity express both the desire and the potential for the widespread adoption and utilization of VR by all individuals regardless of age or background but also make clear that VR has inherent limitations related to interactivity. Accordingly, modifications to the training design, environment, and delivery are required to ensure full accessibility and inclusivity. The additional challenges that the interviewees identified were modest and included the culture within the police service and the method of evaluation. For instance, despite the great enthusiasm for VR among the participants interviewed, they indicated that further efforts were needed to ensure cultural acceptance:

I would say [that an import issue for] spreading [the technology is] the culture. Why do you need VR? Do we need VR? This is the first, culture. (A14)

It was also clear that evaluating performance using VR has limitations. Though qualified staff were involved in the creation of the simulation, they were not present when the students underwent the training. As a result, feedback on the technology depended entirely on built-in mechanisms, so there was little in the way of detailed holistic advice and guidance:

Ideally, the evaluation should be done by the arson investigator. They have a certified trainer there, but, usually, we conduct this [training] because the scenario was made based on their input, and all the evaluation measures were supervised by them. Whatever is approved in the scenario itself is from the input from the specialized arson investigators. (A15)

To overcome this limitation, several of the staff members interviewed (N = 4) indicated that the VR scenarios prioritized the accuracy of content relating to policies and procedures over visual features such as graphics:

The main benefit of our VR is that we use it to teach people procedures, and, in such scenarios, we work with procedures that require fast, rapid, and right decision-making while doing the procedure. For example, during the arson investigation, people are expected to decide what to wear, what evidence to collect, or what pictures to take. (A14)

In the policing field, I focus more on the content of the scenario and the way it’s delivered and the experience than on other things like the graphics quality. Usually, for personal VR consumption, I would worry about things— “Oh, this must look nice.” Now, I’m more interested in the content itself, so I would sacrifice the quality a bit, the graphic quality, and focus on the content quality more. I think that the content quality is very important, and it should be evaluated not only by the developer but also by the subject-matter expert because having a properly made VR scenario can even eliminate the need for the subject matter when being applied to trainees. Just a technical supervisor would be enough to conduct training. (A16)

Because policies and procedures are usually designed to follow certain workflows or rules, trainers can easily identify what students are doing right or wrong, thereby overcoming the potential limitations on evaluation that arise because of the absence of a specialist trainer or assessor.

DISCUSSION

Utility, learning engagement, and skill acquisition

Perceived usefulness, enjoyment, interactivity, and immersion are all key factors in technology acceptance (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) and are crucial for the success of any VR training scenario created for policing. The overwhelmingly positive responses from the participants to the VR arson crime scene investigation scenario created by the ADP indicate that all these factors were accounted for. Accordingly, we observed an elevated level of engagement with and a preference for VR over traditional classroom settings. These results further underscore the value of the interactive and immersive properties of the technology highlighted in prior studies (e.g. Makransky and Lilleholt 2018) and demonstrate that these advantages can be achieved beyond the scope of the existing applications in police training.

The interviewees particularly praised the level of immersion that the VR provided. Previous research has identified immersion as a critical factor in the effectiveness of the technology in terms of learning and engagement (Hamilton et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023). This finding is of note because it has been argued that, while the realism enhances engagement with VR, the impact of the technology on learning outcomes requires further exploration (Niedermayr et al., 2023), for it can be mixed depending on its immersive qualities, design, and learning objectives (Riner et al., 2022). In this study, we found that these issues were addressed through a focus on vocational policies and procedures. As a result, the users indicated that the scenario effectively simulated real-world practices, particularly the requisite procedural knowledge for arson investigation (Ruiz-Cantisani et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023). Thus, the students’ high level of engagement demonstrated the effective transfer of knowledge and awareness related to the subject through the scenarios. This finding lends further support to previous findings suggesting that, unsurprisingly, alignment with learners’ needs is associated with the effectiveness of instruction (Lee et al., 2023) and also adds to the evidence that VR is useful in teaching procedural knowledge and skills (Bharathi and Tucker 2015; Gutiérrez-Maldonado et al., 2015; Sankaranarayanan et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018; Yoganathan et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2023).

It was also evident that the scenario contributed to the acquisition and development of skills. We found evidence that the users developed or fine-tuned their hypothesis generation and decision-making capabilities, thereby demonstrating high levels of reasoning. In addition, the focus on replication of the tools and equipment required to investigate effectively helped the users learn how to use items that they had not previously encountered, such as the camera equipment. We did not test the participants’ learning in this regard, but their confidence suggests a further degree of perceived usefulness driven by the interactivity of the VR scenario that contributed significantly to the technology’s overall acceptance.

Cost and time efficiency

It was evident that a key aspect of perceived usefulness related to the cost-effectiveness of VR. Despite the high initial setup costs, the participants clearly believed, that, over time, significant savings in resources, time, and financial outlay would accrue, a finding that is consistent with previous studies (Farra et al., 2019; Islam et al., 2019). This belief was driven by the ability of the scenario to provide quality training at scale and in a cost-effective manner. In addition to improving employee safety, the technology removed the need for continuous maintenance of the training environments traditionally used for arson investigations, thereby reducing the time taken to deliver it and increasing student throughput. This finding is important because perceived ease of use is also a key component of technology acceptance. If policing organizations consider the cost of developing and using VR training to be prohibitive, they are less likely to consider it easy to develop and implement (Venkatesh and Bala 2008), so its future uptake will be restricted.

Accessibility and inclusivity

Perceived ease of use and interactivity are two key elements of the TAM (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) that are linked to the accessibility and inclusivity of VR. If users cannot interact properly with a scenario, or it is not broadly applicable, marginalized, and disadvantaged, users are less likely to use it. Although the literature emphasizes the promise of VR in creating accessible and inclusive environments, we found mixed results in this regard. From a positive perspective, the findings highlight the appeal and accessibility of VR scenarios across diverse groups, including older and autistic individuals. However, the findings also revealed critical challenges relating to inclusivity and accessibility, particularly when it comes to accommodating certain disabilities and respecting cultural sensitivity associated with gender. These insights echo those of Jacinto and Kappler (2022), who found that, despite technological advances, gaps persist in the ability of VR to accommodate certain users.

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach. For disabilities, while some scenarios may not be fully accessible owing to the nature of the required movements, the attempt to alter experiences to ‘give them a taste’ of the training suggests a possible path to greater inclusivity. However, adaptation processes must strive not only to provide a semblance of the experience but also to ensure substantive and meaningful engagement that contributes to the users’ learning and development. Dudley et al. (2023) and Jacinto and Kappler (2022) argued that such engagement can be achieved through more adaptive technologies and customizable interfaces that cater to a broader spectrum of users, including those with physical disabilities.

The issue of gender inclusivity within the context of cultural sensitivities further complicated the use of the scenario. This issue is underexamined, as most VR research has been conducted in environments in which it is not a concern. However, if VR is to be used in highly religious communities, as was the case here, the interaction and contact between male and female users may be culturally inappropriate. As a result, depending on the gender of the trainers and students, certain users may receive less interactive support because of concerns about cultural boundaries. As such, when creating scenarios catering to policing and other professions, there is a need for sensitivity regarding the contact that may be required between trainers and students to ensure the effectiveness of the VR. The need to maintain this balance is not unique to the technology but is magnified in immersive environments in which physical presence and interaction play heightened roles. Such issues can be addressed by simulation design that prioritizes cultural diversity (Johnson 2023; Zwoliński et al., 2023) and giving due consideration to human resources, for instance, by making available enough female and male VR trainers so that no gender group is disadvantaged. Otherwise, the overall acceptance and effectiveness of the technology may be jeopardised, especially among female employees.

VR in policing

Overall, our results indicate that the arson investigation scenario created for use by the ADP was useful in increasing engagement, knowledge, and awareness as well as skill acquisition. These results add to the growing body of research (Adams et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2019; McCleery et al., 2020; Muñoz et al., 2020; Giessing 2021; Kleygrewe et al., 2024; Alanis and Pyram 2022; Binsch et al., 2022; Gamito et al., 2024) demonstrating that VR can be an effective training medium for policing, thus widening its scope to include crime scene investigation. This finding opens the door for other applications of VR to criminal investigation training. The consensus of the interviewees that the VR provided cost and time efficiencies, in addition to other benefits, such as safety improvements, indicates that achieving these results need not be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, the interviewees mentioned the technology’s perceived usefulness, ease of use, immersion, interactivity, and imaginativeness, all of which are key factors in technology acceptance. Our study thus confirms that, if police services were to adopt VR technology on a large scale, their employees would likely accept it.

However, to ensure acceptance, we recommend that policing VR scenarios remain focused on what makes them engaging and effective. Police services should emphasize policies, processes, and practices and not be enticed by the seductive nature of complex applications that could undermine the cost-benefit reasoning that makes VR a viable training solution. Accordingly, we suggest that ‘keep it simple’ is the appropriate axiom for adopting the technology. Lastly, police services should be mindful of the challenges that we identified related to interactivity for employees with disabilities and, where necessary, consider gender sensitivity. If these factors are considered at the outset, there is an exciting potential for police services to continue to embrace the training benefits that VR can provide.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

While this study presents promising findings regarding the utility of the police VR arson investigation crime scene simulation that we examined, it is not without limitations. First, we did not create a control group for comparison owing to the absence of a suitable environment to replicate the VR training at the time of the study. Additionally, we did not measure learning outcomes or skill retention quantitatively over time, so we did not ascertain the long-term impact of the arson investigation VR training and only described subjective perceptions of its utility. Moreover, the sample size of the interviewees was modest (N = 17), and they were drawn from a single police service. Thus, the generalizability of the findings is limited because the sample may not be fully representative of the experiences and viewpoints of police professionals across regions or countries with a range of socio-cultural nuances that influence the views of users of the technology. Third, we relied on qualitative data that, while rich in detail, are open to subjective interpretations, as is the overall assessment of the utility of the VR simulation. Furthermore, we did not explore in detail the cost-effectiveness of VR training, particularly in relation to traditional training methods over extended periods but based our conclusions solely on the perspectives of the participants.

Given these limitations, we identify several avenues for future research. To begin with, a broader study involving multiple police agencies from diverse geographic and socio-economic backgrounds could enhance the generalizability of the findings. Future research could also incorporate quantitative methods to measure learning outcomes, skill acquisition, and retention over time objectively and provide a more comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the arson investigation VR. Likewise, researchers with access to financial records could conduct a quantitative cost-benefit analysis comparing the VR training with traditional methods to provide valuable insights into the economic viability of the arson investigation VR training.

Funding

None declared.

Appendix: Interview Questions for the Virtual Reality Arson Crime Scene Investigation

1. How would you describe your initial reaction and feelings when you first engaged with the VR arson investigation scenario?

2. What specific elements of the simulation captured your attention initially, and why?

3. In what ways did the VR simulation reflect or differ from real-life experience?

4. Discuss any aspects that significantly influenced your level of immersion.

5. How do you perceive the impact of the VR simulation on your arson crime scene investigation skills and knowledge?

6. Describe any specific element within the simulation that you found especially educational and explain what made it so.

7. Did you learn any new skills?

8. What were the most challenging aspects of the simulation for you, and why?

9. How much mental effort did you feel was required during the simulation?

10. How were the user interface and controls of the VR simulation in terms of user-friendliness and functionality?

11. Did you experience any physical discomfort or disorientation while using the VR? Describe.

12. At the start of the simulation, what equipment did you select to complete the task?

13. Why did you select the equipment that you did?

14. Why did you leave out the items that you did?

15. What forms of protection did you wear, and why?

16. At what stage of the simulation did you put the clothing on, and why?

17. If you left any off, why?

18. What considerations were in your mind when you approached the house?

19. What route did you take to enter the house, and why?

20. How many seeds of fire did you identify, and where were they situated?

21. What did you photograph, and why?

22. What items of evidence did you identify?

23. What did you do with the evidence, and why?

24. What is your view of the applicability of the skills and techniques practiced in the VR simulation to actual arson investigation scenarios?

25. What is your view of the efficiency benefits of VR as a medium of police training for crime scene investigation?

26. Do you intend to use the VR simulation again in the future and, if so, how?

27. Would you recommend this simulation training to other professionals in your field? Please explain your reasoning.

REFERENCES