SynthesisProgress in brain research2023
Evaluating the validity of game-based assessments measuring cognitive function among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Progress in brain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using games to identify adolescents at risk for substance misuse-a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Validating a gamified size perception task for identifying cognitive profiles in children: a latent profile analysis of executive function and sensory measures.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Do Chinese Preschool Children Love Their Motherland? Evidence from the Game-Based Assessment.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Identifying Game-Based Digital Biomarkers of Cognitive Risk for Adolescent Substance Misuse: Protocol for a Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Efficacy of Stand-Alone Digital Interventions to Prevent Substance Use Among Adolescents.Current addiction reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Games offer advantages over traditional methods of assessing cognitive function among children and adolescents. However, the validity of game-based assessments has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the validity of game-based assessments measuring cognitive function among children and adolescents. We systematically searched several databases using pre-defined inclusion criteria. For papers that met the criteria, we extracted and analyzed the cognitive functions measured by each study, the correlation coefficients between game-based and traditional assessments, and factors that could influence the validity of game-based assessments. Our review identified 19 articles featuring 20 studies, 18 games, and 378 unique correlations between game-based and traditional assessments of cognitive function. Game-based assessments yielded significant correlations (n=282, 75%) with traditional assessments, over half of which were in the low to medium range in strength (r=0.3-0.69, n=227, 80%). Factors related to the child, such as age, gender, and prior gaming experience, may influence the validity of game-based assessments by modifying performance on game-based assessments. In addition, we found that game-based assessments that measured cognitive functions across more than one neurocognitive domain and used a prediction model for scoring were more likely to yield significant correlations. In contrast, including a narrative storyline in a game-based assessment was less likely to yield significant correlations. Most studies were of good quality, although the lack of sample size justification was a limiting factor. Further research is needed to elucidate the influence of identified factors on the validity of game-based assessment to justify the wide adoption of game-based assessments of cognitive function among children and adolescents.
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.