Cited by 6Educational Games and GamificationMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Trading Accuracy for Enjoyment? Data Quality and Player Experience in Data Collection Games

Open access
Gundry, David, Deterding, Sebastian·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Games have become a popular way of collecting human subject data, based on the premise that they are more engaging than surveys or experiments, but generate equally valid data. However, this premise has not been empirically tested. In response, we designed a game for eliciting linguistic data following Intrinsic Elicitation – a design approach aiming to minimise validity threats in data collection games – and compared it to an equivalent linguistics experiment as control. In a preregistered study and replication (n=96 and n=136), using two different ways of operationalising accuracy, the game generated substantially more enjoyment (d=.70,.73) and substantially less accurate data (d=-.68, -.40) – though still more accurate than random responding. We conclude that for certain data types data collection games may present a serious trade-off between participant enjoyment and data quality, identify possible causes of lower data quality for future research, reflect on our design approach, and urge games HCI researchers to use careful controls where appropriate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3502025

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Differences in the sequence of data pre-processing steps have been found to produce radically different ML results.

    “Differences in the sequence of data pre-processing steps have been found to produce radically different ML results (e.g.correcting the data for missing values using imputation can affect outliers in the dataset) [27].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gundry, D., & Deterding, S.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-27
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W4225335161
Cited by
6
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Research at York St John (York St John University) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L015846/1, EP/M023265/1)
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (EP/M023265/1)
  • Innovate UK (EP/M023265/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
gamification, data quality, language elicitation, accuracy trade-off, pre-registered replication

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