Background: This study attempted a comparative analysis of three splint fabrication methods currently used in clinical fields. Traditional Orthotic Fabrication Method Utilizing Thermoplastic Resin, the Methodology for creating assistive devices using 3D scanner, commercial CAD software, and 3D printing technology, and the Fabrication Method of Arm Splint Based on XR (eXtended Reality) Algorithm. Objectives: The study recruited 12 undergraduate students majoring in physical therapy and occupational therapy who had sufficient knowledge of splints, with an equal gender distribution. The study randomized the participants and conducted the experiment and overall process using a stratified approach. Design: Clinical applied technology experiment Methods: The study used QUEST 2.0 (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology ver. 2.0) to survey standardization, weight, ease of use, safety, durability, usability, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, and statistically analyzed all results as quantitative indicators. Results: The score of QUEST 2.0 showed different aspects in some items, and it is difficult to say that certain technologies are superior overall. Conclusion: The study attempted an intuitive interpretation of the results. Overall, it was concluded that the XR method, which allows for easy and fast fabrication, is likely to be more readily accepted in future clinical practice.