Purpose: Examining and treating movement dysfunction is a cornerstone of physical therapist practice. Physical therapists have unique expertise in examining and evaluating the movement system and providing interventions to optimize movement and functional performance. Consequently, physical therapy curricula should include specific training and deliberate practice of evaluating movement to inform clinical decision making. However, the opportunity for deliberate practice is limited. Current simulated methods fall short due to limitations in timing and realistic portrayal of disorders: students either practice movement examination with their peers (who do not have movement dysfunction); or have limited encounters practicing with standardized patients. Both are prone to incorrect or highly variable portrayals of movement dysfunction, which is detrimental to skill acquisition. Virtual reality (VR) is an effective learning tool in higher education and medical training. VR allows learners to repeatedly and reliably study the movement system at the level of the full human with the ability to visualize underlying anatomical layers to aid the understanding of the root causes of movement dysfunction. VR is a more cost-effective option compared to standardized patients, and can be distributed across learning spaces to provide in- and out-of-class learning opportunities. The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using a VR program to practice movement system examination in a DPT curriculum. Methods/Description: A VR program was developed to include 3 virtual patients performing different sit-to-stand transfers in a virtual PT clinic. Each animation represented common sit-to-stand movement errors that a PT would likely see in the clinic. Participants interacted with all 3 animations and verbalized aloud their observations of the movement while a faculty completed a 19-item checklist of expected behaviors and observations built from evidence regarding sit-to-stand mechanics and frameworks for analyzing movement currently utilized in the curriculum. Participants also completed a pre- and post-VR survey consisting of 1-5 Likert scale and open-ended questions to capture their beliefs and attitudes regarding VR. Results/Outcomes: Data collection is currently on going, with the expectation that twenty current DPT students will participate in the study. To date, participants (n=15) scored an average of 15.8 on the 19-item checklist, indicating they could meet most benchmark behaviors for movement analysis while using the VR. Pre-/post-survey comparison shows that prior to using the VR module, all participants either agreed (4) or strongly agreed (5) that VR could be effective at simulating human movement and could be beneficial in healthcare training. After the VR module, all participations strongly agreed (5) that the animations were realistic enough to practice their movement analysis skills and that VR could be effectively used in a DPT curriculum. However, all but two participants either disagreed (2) or strongly disagreed (1) that VR could replace face-to-face training opportunities in the DPT curriculum both before and after using the VR module. Conclusions/Relevance to the conference theme: The results of the current study suggest that using VR to practice movement analysis was received favorably by DPT students, however, they also feel strongly that VR should not replace traditional face-to-face lab opportunities. Notably, the VR environment provided a reliable space to practice examination skills. The prospect of utilizing this new innovation would advance current concepts in simulation-based learning in DPT curricula and provide a unique platform for practicing skills of movement system examination.