Gs Invaders: Assessing a computer game-like test of processing speed
Open accessAbstract
Computer games potentially offer a useful research tool for psychology but there has been little use made of them in assessing cognitive abilities. Two studies assessing the viability of a computer game-like test of cognitive processing speed are described. In Experiment 1, a computerized coding task that uses a mouse responsemethod (McPherson & Burns, 2005) was the basis for a simple computer game-like test. In Experiment 2, dynamic game-like elements were added. Validity was assessed within a factor analytic framework using standardized abilities tests as marker tests. We conclude that computer game-like tests of processing speed may provide an alternative or supplementary tool for research and assessment. There is clearly potential to develop game-like tests for other cognitive abilities.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
These games tended to build simple game-archetypes around an existing cognitive task, with the goal of encouraging self-motivation, improving participant enjoyment, and reducing test anxiety.
“these games tended to build simple game-archetypes, such as space invaders or whack-a-mole, around an existing cognitive task; with the goal of encouraging self-motivation, improving participant enjoyment, and even reducing test anxiety [17].”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
Space Code had similar mixed-domain problems.
“Space Code [17,18] had similar problems.”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
There were some indications that gamification may actually worsen data quality.
“and there were some indications that it may actually worsen it [17,18,34,36].”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
Results of references [9,17,18,38] show that gamified tasks can be used to improve motivation, while still maintaining a scientifically valid task.
“The results of references [9,17,18,38], show that gamified tasks can be used to improve motivation, while still maintaining a scientifically valid task.”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- McPherson, J., & Burns, N. R.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Corresponding author
- McPherson, Jason
- ORCID
- Burns, Nicholas R.
- Venue
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 876-883
- ISSN
- 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-3528
- OpenAlex
- W1983467759
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- video games, processing speed, cognitive assessment, test validity, factor analysis, cognitive ability
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cognition, Computers, Female, Humans, Male, Motion Perception, Reaction Time, Video Games
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
