Hypothesis 2: Training using the standard VR training game is more effective than training at a training site (real-life). The use of standard VR activities was not more effective than the real procedures on the training ground. The results of the practical and theoretical assessments showed no significant differences between the group using the VR training game and the group using conventional training at a training site. The lack of differences in effectiveness between the groups suggests that both training methods are equally effective in preparing participants for work at height.

Hypothesis 3: Shortening the length of a training unit in favour of increasing the frequency (multi-shift method) increases the effectiveness of training. During the multi-shift version of training the participants made the fewest errors. Shorter but more frequent training units contributed to better practical performance. The multi-shift method proved to be the most effective of the options analysed.

Hypothesis 4: Training in a setting that replicates real working conditions (so-called Learning VR with applied environment) is more effective than training in the Standard VR only. Trainees obtained high scores in the theory assessment, regardless of the type of training. Trainees using the Learning VR made fewer mistakes during the practical assessment as compared to trainees using the VR Standard version of training. Training in a setting that replicated real working conditions, ie. using the Learning VR method with applied environment, proved more effective in terms of practical results compared to training in Standard VR.

Hypothesis 5: Training in a setting that replicates real working conditions (so-called Learning VR with applied environment) is more effective than training at a training site (real-life) No differences were noticed between the groups in the theoretical knowledge assessment – both groups obtained a high average score. Trainees using VR Learning made fewer mistakes during the practical assessment than those trained at a training site. Training in a setting that replicates real working conditions (Learning VR with applied environment) proved more effective than training at a training site (real-life).

Hypothesis 6: The use of virtual reality and simulated work at height in the desensitization process reduces fear of heights in people suffering from acrophobia. Physiological data collected using the GSR devices confirmed a reduction in physiological response during VR tasks. The results of the SUDS and SSQ questionnaires showed a decrease in the level of perceived symptoms of anxiety and simulator sickness. The results indicate the effectiveness of VR simulation in behavioural therapy for fear of heights. The results of the study indicate potential for further research and possible implementation of VR in therapy. Virtual reality training can be an effective tool in reducing fear of heights for both acrophobia sufferers and employees working at heights. VR exposure therapy can have a positive impact on patients’/workers’ self-esteem, their agency and day-to-day functioning. A reduction in fear of heights can contribute to an improved quality of life and ability to perform work-related tasks at height.

Hypothesis 7: The use of virtual reality and simulated work at height in the desensitisation process reduces fear of heights in people suffering from acrophobia. The analysis of the SUDS and SSQ questionnaires showed no significant differences between the results obtained during the pre-test and post-test. The analysis of GSR parameters also showed no significant changes in reaction levels. The analysis of errors showed a significant reduction in the number of errors made on the third testing attempt as compared to the first. Also the time needed to complete a task time was significantly shorter on the second attempt as compared to the first.
Exploratory study: A comparison of the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) and conventional training methods in terms of individual differences and socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. Individuals with higher levels of anxiety performed more poorly in both the theory and practical assessments in both the VR and conventional training. These results suggest that more anxious individuals may have difficulties focusing and performing effectively in complicated training situations. Place of residence had no significant effect on VR training outcomes, whereas, depending on place of residence, statistically significant differences in anxiety levels were observed in the conventional training group. It is important to consider psychological factors, such as anxiety levels, when planning and implementing both VR and conventional training. Individual differences and socio-demographic characteristics of participants can affect the effectiveness of training as well.