Formative evaluation is widely used in implementation science to anticipate barriers and facilitators prior to the deployment of health technologies, typically relying on stakeholders’ reported beliefs collected before real-world exposure. This approach has proven informative for many digital health tools; however, its application to immersive and embodied technologies such as extended reality (XR) warrants closer scrutiny. Most XR interventions in health care are delivered through head-mounted displays, which depend on spatial perception and sensorimotor engagement. Several implementation-relevant properties, including comfort, perceived intrusiveness, safety, and workflow disruption, often become apparent only through direct interaction. At the same time, large segments of the health care workforce remain XR-naive, such that preuse judgments are frequently shaped by anticipation rather than experience. Drawing on concepts from implementation science, grounded cognition, and human-computer interaction, this Viewpoint examines a plausible interpretive problem in XR adoption and argues that perception-based formative evaluation, when applied through frameworks developed for screen-based technologies, may misclassify barriers and facilitators. Rather than questioning formative evaluation as a methodological approach, we identify a boundary condition for its interpretability in experience-dependent technologies and propose a pragmatic refinement: incorporating brief experiential familiarization before eliciting stakeholder perceptions to strengthen early-stage assessment and improve alignment with real-world implementation decisions.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/6b17c7f022153c7e3d6256671daa9279" />
Radically different