Cited by 132Educational Games and GamificationDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

A Serious Game for Clinical Assessment of Cognitive Status: Validation Study

Open access
Tong, Tiffany, Chignell, Mark, Tierney, Mary C., Lee, Jacques·2016·JMIR Serious Games

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We propose the use of serious games to screen for abnormal cognitive status in situations where it may be too costly or impractical to use standard cognitive assessments (eg, emergency departments). If validated, serious games in health care could enable broader availability of efficient and engaging cognitive screening. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of a game-based cognitive assessment delivered on tablet technology to a clinical sample and to conduct preliminary validation against standard mental status tools commonly used in elderly populations. METHODS: We carried out a feasibility study in a hospital emergency department to evaluate the use of a serious game by elderly adults (N=146; age: mean 80.59, SD 6.00, range 70-94 years). We correlated game performance against a number of standard assessments, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). RESULTS: After a series of modifications, the game could be used by a wide range of elderly patients in the emergency department demonstrating its feasibility for use with these users. Of 146 patients, 141 (96.6%) consented to participate and played our serious game. Refusals to play the game were typically due to concerns of family members rather than unwillingness of the patient to play the game. Performance on the serious game correlated significantly with the MoCA (r=-.339, P <.001) and MMSE (r=-.558, P <.001), and correlated (point-biserial correlation) with the CAM (r=.565, P <.001) and with other cognitive assessments. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrates the feasibility of using serious games in a clinical setting. Further research is required to demonstrate the validity and reliability of game-based assessments for clinical decision making.

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 · 10.2196/games.5006

Cites

25 of 26 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]Field A Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed 2013 01 23 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tong, T., Chignell, M., Tierney, M. C., & Lee, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Tong, Tiffany
Venue
JMIR Serious Games
Published
2016-05-27
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
e7
ISSN
2291-9279 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2405549127
Cited by
132
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
FWCI
26.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Serious Games (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
serious games, cognitive screening, cognitive impairment, elderly patients, emergency department, tablet-based assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Confusion Assessment Method, validation, feasibility

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