Modern board and card game-based cognitive interventions and gamification practices showed effectiveness in boosting executive functions and decreasing behavioral problems in children. However, the combination of both game-based methods has not been tested. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of gamification in modern board and card game-based cognitive interventions in Spanish schoolchildren at risk of social exclusion.
Materials and Methods:
In this multicenter single-blind study with a quasi-experimental design, 176 schoolers (6–13 years old) were assigned to a gamified group (with a narrative context and a rewarding system) and 107 to a nongamified group (with no narrative context or rewarding system). The interventions were implemented in regular classes. Behavioral executive dysfunction was assessed using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Revision (BRIEF-2) (Teacher form), pre- and postintervention.
Results:
We found significant time effects in all BRIEF-2 domains with small and medium effect sizes (d = −0.35 to d = −0.62). The nongamified group showed significantly higher decreases in all measures than those who used gamification.
Conclusions:
It is possible that playing for the joy of playing in the nongamified group was enough motivation to focus on the task, while adding gamification elements did not favor greater effectiveness of the program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Herranz AguayoI, Díaz HerráizE, Montenegro MarquesE, et al.Child at risk of poverty or social exclusion: Comparative view between Spain and Portugal in the European context. Soc Indic Res, 2016; 129:961–978.
2.
Assing-MurrayE, Lebrun-HarrisL. Associations between parent-reported family economic hardship and mental health conditions in U.S. children. J Child Poverty, 2020; 26:191–214.
3.
GuoG, HarrisKM. The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on children's intellectual development. Demography, 2000; 37:431–447.
4.
HaftSL, HoeftF. Poverty's impact on children's executive functions: Global considerations. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev, 2017; 2017:69–79.
5.
BullR, LeeK. Executive functioning and mathematics achievement. Child Dev Perspect, 2014; 8:36–41.
6.
DiamondA.Executive functions. Cogn Train An Overv Featur Appl, 2013; 64:135–168.
7.
KouklariE, TsermentseliS, MonksCP. Hot and cool executive function in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: Cross-sectional developmental trajectories. Child Neuropsychol, 2018; 24:1088–1114.
8.
ZelazoPD, CarlsonSM. Hot and cool executive function in childhood and adolescence: Development and plasticity. Child Dev Perspect, 2012; 6:354–360.
9.
KouklariEC, TsermentseliS, MonksCP. Developmental trends of hot and cool executive function in school-aged children with and without autism spectrum disorder: Links with theory of mind. Dev Psychopathol, 2019; 31:541–556.
10.
MaldonadoMJ, FournierC, MartínezR, et al.BRIEF-2. Evaluación Conductual de La Función Ejecutiva [BRIEF-2. Behavioral Assessment of the Executive Functioning]. TEA Ediciones, Madrid, Spain.
11.
Gray-BurrowsK, TaylorN, O'ConnorD, et al.A systematic review and meta-analysis of the executive function-health behaviour relationship. Heal Psychol Behav Med, 2019; 7:253–268.
12.
MolitorSJ, OddoLE, EadehH, LangbergJM. Executive function deficits in adolescents with ADHD: Untangling possible sources of heterogeneity. J Emot Behav Disord, 2018; 27:165–177.
13.
ChristensenDL, SchieveLA, DevineO, Drews-BotschC. Socioeconomic status, child enrichment factors, and cognitive performance among preschool-age children: Results from the Follow-Up of Growth and Development Experiences study. Res Dev Disabil, 2014; 35:1789–1801.
14.
Bahar-fuchsA, ClareL, WoodsB. Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for persons with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer's or vascular type: A review. Alzheimers Res Ther, 2013; 5:35.
15.
KlingbergT.Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends Cogn Sci, 2010; 14:317–324.
16.
Tajik-ParvinchiD, WrightL, SchacharR. Cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Promises and problems. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2014; 23:207–217.
17.
PalausM, MarronEM, Viejo-soberaR, Redolar-ripollD. Neural basis of video gaming: A systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci, 2017; 11:248.
18.
BatemanC, NackeLE. The neurobiology of play. In: Future Play 2010: Research, Play, Share—International Academic Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology [Internet]. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2010. pp. 1–8. Available from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1920778.1920780.
19.
NakataniH, YamaguchiY. Quick concurrent responses to global and local cognitive information underlie intuitive understanding in board-game experts. Sci Rep, 2014; 4:1–10.
20.
SalaG, GobetF. Experts’ memory superiority for domain-specific random material generalizes across fields of expertise: A meta-analysis. Mem Cogn, 2017; 45:183–193.
21.
ChaseWG, SimonHA. Perception in chess. Cogn Psychol, 1973; 4:55–81.
22.
ReingoldEM, CharnessN, SchultetusRS, StampeDM. Perceptual automaticity in expert chess players: Parallel encoding of chess relations. Psychon Bull Rev, 2001; 8:504–510.
23.
CharnessN, ReingoldEM, PomplunM, StampeDM. The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Mem Cogn, 2001; 29:1146–1152.
24.
ReingoldEM, CharnessN, PomplunM, StampeDM. Research article evidence from eye movements. Psychol Sci, 2001; 12:48–55.
25.
SheridanH, ReingoldEM. The mechanisms and boundary conditions of the einstellung effect in chess: Evidence from eye movements. PLoS One, 2013; 8:1–8.
26.
CharnessN, TuffiashM, KrampeR, et al.The role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Appl Cogn Psychol, 2005; 19:151–165.
27.
SalaG, GobetF. Working memory training in typically developing children: A meta-analysis of the available evidence. Dev Psychol, 2017; 53:671–685.
28.
NakaoM.Special series on “effects of board games on health education and promotion” board games as a promising tool for health promotion: A review of recent literature. Biopsychosoc Med, 2019; 13:3–9.
29.
IizukaA, IshiiK, WagatsumaK, et al.Neural substrate of a cognitive intervention program using Go game: A positron emission tomography study. Aging Clin Exp Res, 2020; 32:2349–2355.
30.
SalaG, AksayliND, TatlidilKS, et al.Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra Psychol, 2019; 5:18.
31.
SalaG, GobetF. Does far transfer exist? Negative evidence from chess, music, and working memory training. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2017; 26:515–520.
32.
SalaG, GobetF. Do the benefits of chess instruction transfer to academic and cognitive skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev, 2016; 18:46–57.
33.
SousaM, BernardoE. Back in the Game. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference VJ 2019. Aveiro, Portugal, Springer, November, 2019; 2019:72–85.
34.
SieglerRS, RamaniGB. Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income children's numerical development. Dev Sci, 2008; 11:655–661.
35.
SkillenJ, BernerV-D, Seitz-SteinK. The rule counts! Acquisition of mathematical competencies with a number board game. J Educ Res, 2018; 111:554–563.
36.
KniziaR.Bee Alert [Abejitas Zum Zum]. Mostoles,Spain: Mercurio Distribuciones; 2012.
37.
GobetF, de VoogtA, RetschitzkiJ. Moves in Mind: The Psychology of Board Games. London: Psychology Press; 2004.
38.
Ching-TengY.Effect of board game activities on cognitive function improvement among older adults in adult day care centers. Soc Work Health Care, 2019; 58:825–838.
39.
KuoCY, HuangYM, YehYY. Let's play cards: Multi-component cognitive training with social engagement enhances executive control in older adults. Front Psychol, 2018; 9:1–13.
40.
MiltiadesHB, ThatcherWG. Social engagement during game play in persons with Alzheimer's: Innovative practice. Dementia, 2019; 18:808–813.
41.
MiltiadesHB, ThatcherWG. Individuals with Alzheimer's learn to play a tile placement game: Results of a pilot study: Innovative practice. Dementia, 2019; 18:802–807.
42.
Estrada-PlanaV, MontaneraR, Ibarz-EstrugaA, et al.Cognitive training with modern board and card games in healthy older adults: Two randomized controlled trials. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2021; 36:839–850.
43.
BenzingV, SchmidtM, JägerK, et al.A classroom intervention to improve executive functions in late primary school children: Too ‘old’ for improvements?. Br J Educ Psychol, 2019; 89:225–238.
44.
Estrada-PlanaV, EsquerdaM, ManguesR, et al.A pilot study of the efficacy of a cognitive training based on board games in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Games Health J, 2019; 8:265–274.
45.
DörnerR, GöbelS, EffelsbergW, WiemeyerJ. Serious Games: Foundations, Concepts and Practice. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016.
46.
van der OordS, PonsioenAJGB, GeurtsHM, et al.A pilot study of the efficacy of a computerized executive functioning remediation training with game elements for children with ADHD in an outpatient setting: Outcome on parent- and teacher-rated executive functioning and ADHD behavior. J Atten Disord, 2014; 18:699–712.
47.
PrinsPJM, DovisS, PonsioenA, et al.Does computerized working memory training with game elements enhance motivation and training efficacy in children with ADHD?. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2011; 14:115–122.
48.
DeterdingS, DixonD, KhaledR, NackeL. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, MindTrek, 2011; pp. 9–15.
49.
FadhliM, BrickB, SetyosariP, et al.A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of gamification method for children. Int J Instr, 2020; 13:845–854.
50.
Howard-JonesPA, JayT, MasonA, JonesH. Gamification of learning deactivates the default mode network. Front Psychol, 2016; 6:1–16.
51.
LumsdenJ, EdwardsEA, LawrenceNS, et al.Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: A systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Serious Games, 2016; 4:e11.
52.
Pérez LópezI, Rivera GarcíaE, Delgado-FernándezM. Improvement of healthy lifestyle habits in university students through a gamification proposal. Nutr Hosp, 2017; 34:942–951.
53.
SpectorJM, MerrillMD, ElenJ, BishopMJ. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer; 2014.
54.
Ayuntamiento deAlmería. Local Intervention Plan in DisadvantagedAreas. Council ofAlmeria, AlmeriaSpain. 2018.
55.
Consejería de Igualdad y Políticas Sociales. Andalusian regional strategy for cohesion and social inclusion: Intervention in disadvantaged areas (ERACIS). Sevilla; 2018.
56.
CraigP, KatikireddiSV, LeylandA, PophamF. Natural experiments: An overview of methods, approaches, and contributions to public health intervention research. Annu Rev Public Heal, 2017; 38:39–56.
57.
HarrisAD, BradhamDD, BaumgartenM, et al.The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis, 2004; 38:1586–1591.
58.
RenjithV.Blinding in randomized controlled trials: What researchers need to know?. Manipal J Nurs Heal Sci, 2017; 3:45–50.
59.
QuintasA, BustamanteJ, PradasF, CastellarC. Psychological effects of gamified didactics with exergames in Physical Education at primary schools: Results from a natural experiment. Comput Educ, 2020; 152:103874.
60.
ToplakME, WestRF, StanovichKE. Practitioner Review: Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct?. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2013; 2:131–143.
61.
MuñozMP, FilippettiVA. Confirmatory factor analysis of the BRIEF-2 parent and teacher form: Relationship to performance-based measures of executive functions and academic achievement. Appl Neuropsychol Child, 2021; 10:219–233.
62.
ChaytorN, Schmitter-edgecombeM, BurrR. Improving the ecological validity of executive functioning assessment. Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 2006; 21:217–227.
63.
ChanRCK, ShumD, ToulopoulouT, ChenEYH. Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 2008; 23:201–216.
64.
GioiaGA, IsquithPK, GuySC, KenworthyL. BRIEF-2. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (2nd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources I, ed. Psychological Assessment Recources, INC. Lutz, EEUU; 2015.
65.
BrysbaertM, StevensM. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. J Cogn, 2018; 1:9.
66.
WestfallJ, KennyDA, JuddCM. Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. J Exp Psychol Gen 2014.; 143:2020–2045.
67.
LittleRJ, D'AgostinoR, CohenML, et al.The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med, 2012; 367:1355–1360.
68.
ThabaneL, MbuagbawL, ZhangS, et al.A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: The what, why, when and how. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2013; 13:92.
69.
BellML, FieroM, HortonNJ, HsuCH. Handling missing data in RCTs; A review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014; 14:1–8.
70.
Hassinger-DasB, ToubTS, ZoshJM, et al.More than just fun: a place for games in playful learning. Infanc y Aprendiz, 2017; 40:191–218.
71.
LepperMR, HenderlongJ. Turning “play” into “work” and “work” into “play”. In: Sansone C, Harackiewicz J (eds.). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Cambridge, EEUU: Academic Press; 2000. pp. 257–307.
72.
LepperMR, CorpusJH, IyengarSS. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. J Educ Psychol, 2005; 97:184–196.
73.
Ferreira-BritoF, FialhoM, VirgolinoA, et al.Game-based interventions for neuropsychological assessment, training and rehabilitation: Which game-elements to use? A systematic review. J Biomed Inform, 2019; 98:103287.
74.
Visu-PetraL, CheieL, BengaO, Packiam AllowayT. Effects of anxiety on memory storage and updating in young children. Int J Behav Dev, 2011; 35:38–47.
75.
MatageJM, BegiN. Socioeconomic and school factors causing pupils’ absenteeism in lower primary schools in Masaba Sub-county, Kenya. Eur J Educ Stud, 2017; 3:451–463.
76.
IngulJM, KlöcknerCA, SilvermanWK, NordahlHM. Adolescent school absenteeism: modelling social and individual risk factors. Child Adolesc Ment Health, 2012; 17:93–100.
77.
RasasinghamR.The risk and protective factors of school absenteeism. Open J Psychiatry, 2015; 5:195–203.
78.
AllowayTP.How does working memory work in the classroom?. Educ Res Rev, 2006; 1:134–9.
79.
Bos IFDen, Ven SHG VanDer, KroesbergenEH, Luit JEHVan. Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev, 2013; 10:29–44.
80.
AllowayTP, GathercoleSE, AdamsA, et al.Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals at school entry. Br J Dev Psychol, 2005; 23:417–426.
81.
KibbyMY, LeeSE, DyerSM. Reading performance is predicted by more than phonological processing. Front Psychol, 2014; 5:960.
82.
HattieJAC.Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York, EEUU: Routledg; 2009.
83.
CárdenasM, ArancibiaH. Statistical power and effect size calculating in G*power: Complementary analysis of statistical sig. Salud Soc, 2014; 5:210–224.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
