ArticleJournal of Intelligence2024
The Relationship Between Game-Related Assessment and Traditional Measures of Cognitive Ability-A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Ability Testing in the Workplace: Modern Approaches and Methods.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Do Applicant Reactions to Gamified Cognitive Ability Tests Differ Between High- Versus Low-Stakes Settings?Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological advances have introduced new methods for assessing psychological constructs, moving beyond traditional paper-pencil tests. Game-related assessments (GRAs) offer several advantages for research and practice, though questions about their construct validity persist. This meta-analysis investigated the relationship between indicators derived from computer-based games and traditional cognitive ability measures, examining whether measurement scope (single vs. multiple indicators) or measurement medium of cognitive ability (computer-based vs. paper-pencil) influences this relationship. We identified 52 eligible samples stemming from 44 papers, including data from over 6100 adult participants. The results from three-stage mixed-effects meta-analyses showed an overall observed correlation of
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.