Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of two game experience scales: The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) and Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ)

Open access
Johnson, Daniel, Gardner, M. John, Perry, Ryan·2018·International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

HIGHLIGHTS • Popular measures of videogame player experience typically have not been empirically validated • We provide factor-analytic validation of two of the most commonly used player experience scales • The theorised structure of the GEQ is partially supported; a revised five factor structure is proposed • The theorised structure of the PENS is largely supported, but we suggest combining two subscales ABSTRACT Accurate measurement of the player experience in videogames is key to understanding the impacts of videogame play, designing and developing engaging videogames, and effectively applying game design principles in other fields. A large number of player experience questionnaires are available, but in most cases empirical validation of the scales is limited or absent. Two of the most commonly used scales are the Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) and the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). Both scales were developed using a rational-theoretical approach, but neither scale has had formal factor-analytic studies published, limiting our capacity to judge the empirical validity of the scales. We present detailed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of both scales based on responses from a sample (n=571) of videogame players. The GEQ is partially supported (using a revised factor structure); the PENS is largely supported (with a more minor revision of the factor structure). We provide suggestions for the most effective use of both scales in future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.003

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, D., Gardner, M. J., & Perry, R.
Venue
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
118
Pages
38-46
ISSN
1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.003
OpenAlex
W2803336399
Cited by
254
References
10
FWCI
37.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validation of two game experience scales: The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) and Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.003
The paper
Johnson, D., Gardner, M. J., & Perry, R. (2018). Validation of two game experience scales: The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) and Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.