SRP Post #6: List Loading

Yeawon K -

Hi everyone!

To give some quick updates: after meeting with my mentor, she suggested I stick with asking singular questions to assess perceptions of video games and therapeutic treatments. The rationale is that it is a lot simpler than creating/analyzing my own scales, and it also allows me to focus on the bigger picture which is analyzing the effectiveness of video games in the first place.

I also want to briefly talk about my methods for analyzing my list of video games which I shared in a previous post! As I am currently going through my list here are the factors I am looking at and the justification behind them:

  1. Multiple Games: If a game has multiple games within the experience it will be hard to ensure each participant has the same gaming experience, thus posing a confounding variable. For instance, games like Roblox or Netflix Game Controller offer a variety of different games, which will make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the same game for all participants.
  2. Upfront Cost: If a game requires money to play it in the first place, that could potentially be a financial barrier, which contests the “affordability” factor of accessibility. For instance, Flower does unfortunately cost money to play, which will make it difficult to use for my study video game of choice.
  3. In-App Purchases: If a game has in-app purchases (especially those that can greatly alter the gaming experience), this could provide another confounding variable or even a financial barrier. As I am currently going through my list, it seems most games have in-app purchases. In the instance an apt game does not exist without in-app purchases, I will likely have to select a game with in-app purchases that do not greatly alter the gaming experience or ask participants not to make any in-app purchases.
  4. iOS/iPhone Availability & Google Play/Android Availability: If a game is not available on either of these platforms, it will be difficult to ensure widespread physical accessibility as these platforms/devices are the most common.
  5. Alternate Device Availability: If a game is available on other devices (beyond the two aforementioned devices), it is considered even more physically accessible, but having iOS/Google Play availability is a requirement.
  6. Wi-Fi/Internet Necessity: If a game needs Wi-Fi/Internet connection to be played, it conflicts with physical accessibility as Internet access is not a guarantee.
  7. Age Rating: The age rating of a game is a good indicator of the level of appropriate content within the game and thus its acceptability. For instance, Block Blast has an App Store rating of 17+ due to “infrequent/mild sexual content and nudity; frequent/intense mature/suggestive themes; infrequent/mild simulated gambling”. The reason for this is likely the ads that are shown, but regardless, a game rated 17+ will likely not be perceived well or be appropriate for high school students.
  8. English Availability: It seems most of the games are available in English (which will be this study’s main language), meaning they align with the physically accessible aspect of accessibility.
  9. Alternate Language Availability: Similar to “Alternate Device Availability”, this is considered a bonus of sorts, but English availability is a requirement.
  10. Ads: It appears most games have ads, but the reason I include this is for control purposes. Sometimes ads can pose alternate content or even offer playable demos which may cause the gaming experience to differ for each individual. If an apt game does not exist without ads, I will likely have to select one where ads are generally not as intrusive.

I hope my justifications made sense. These were generally selected based on the information provided by the App Store/Google Play Store for each game. I plan to run through them with my mentor to ensure they make sense, but if you have any concerns let me know! In the meantime, I will continue to be going through my list. I hope to be back next week with a game!

Sincerely,

Yeawon Kim

 

More Posts

Comments:

All viewpoints are welcome but profane, threatening, disrespectful, or harassing comments will not be tolerated and are subject to moderation up to, and including, full deletion.

    nupoor_c
    Hi Yeawon! I think your criteria is a great justification for choosing a game. Under the condition that you can't find a game that meets all those criteria, which will you choose to forgo?
    March 17, 2025 at 10:10 am - Reply
      yeawon_k
      Hi Nupoor! This is actually something that has been on my mind! If possible, I'd like to prioritize the three main principles of accessibility: affordability, physical accessibility, and acceptability. This means I will likely prioritize upfront cost, device/internet availability, and age rating, respectively! The rest of the criteria are additional factors that would be ideal, but most (such as in-app purchases or alternate language availability) can be "voided" in the sense that they are not necessary and will not become confounding variables.
      March 23, 2025 at 11:39 pm - Reply
    mahalena_g
    Hi Yeawon! I really love how well thought out your approach to assessing video games for therapeutic potential is! One question for you though: do you have criteria for measuring whether the game is fun or immersive enough to keep participants engaged?
    March 17, 2025 at 11:16 am - Reply
      yeawon_k
      Hi Mahalena! That's a great question! My initial criteria for choosing the video game is to assess for accessibility, and engagement doesn't outwardly fall under any of the three principles I've been referring to. Rather, engagement aligns more with "effectiveness" - in the sense that one can continue to play the game and the treatment thus becomes viable in the long run. This will be measured at the end of the study by comparing how students spend their time playing the game (and through qualitative assessments as well)!
      March 23, 2025 at 11:42 pm - Reply

Leave a Reply to yeawon_k Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *