ArticlePloS one2021
Gamifying quantitative face-to-face interviews in rural India: An empirical evaluation based on the basic psychological needs theory.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Traditional and modern eating in older adults: a comparison between an urban and rural sample from Gujarat, Western India.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveStandardized face-to-face interviews are widely used in low and middle-income countries to collect data for social science and health research. Such interviews can be long and tedious. In an attempt to improve the respondents' experience of interviews, we developed a concept of gamified interview format by including a game element. Gamification is reported to increase engagement in tasks, but results from rigorously developed research are equivocal, and a theory of gamification is still needed. MATERIALS &
methodsWe evaluated the proposed gamification with a randomized controlled trial based on self-determination theory, specifically on the basic psychological needs theory. In total, 1266 respondents were interviewed. Single and multiple mediation analyses were used to understand the effects of the gamified interview format.
resultsOur evaluation showed that the gamification we had developed did not improve the outcome, the experience of the interview reported by respondent. The effect of the gamified interview format depended on the ability of respondents: gamification can be counterproductive if it overburdens the respondents. However, the basic psychological needs theory explained the mechanisms of action of gamification well: feeling competent and related to others improved the reported experience of the interview.
conclusionWe emphasize the need to develop context-specific gamification and invite researchers to conduct equivalently rigorous evaluations of gamification in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.