Extended Reality (XR), encompassing Mixed Reality (MR), is an emerging platform for immersive team collaboration and training, but little is known about how team dynamics and game experience can be measured and modelled in such settings.
Aim
This study explores whether MR team games can foster cohesion and performance, and develops an exploratory model linking team dynamics, game experience, and team outcomes.
Method
Using a quasi-experimental pre/post design, 72 participants (24 teams of three) played an MR escape room in a fully immersive CAVE environment. Team dynamics (e.g., cohesion, trust, efficacy) and game experience (e.g., usability, immersion, aesthetics) were assessed with validated scales. Exploratory Factor Analysis (RQ1) examined the construct validity of the measures. Paired t-tests (RQ2–RQ3) tested pre/post changes in cohesion and performance. Structural Equation Modelling (RQ4) explored explanatory relationships among constructs.
Results
EFA confirmed that the proposed constructs could be empirically distinguished. Pre/post comparisons showed significant increases in cohesion and perceived performance. SEM path analysis indicated that team dynamics and game experience mutually reinforced each other and jointly predicted performance, supporting the efficacy of the MR escape room game as a team-building tool.
Conclusion and Future Research
The combined results indicate that MR escape rooms can strengthen team dynamics while offering a useful framework for measuring game experience. Although exploratory in scope, this study provides a foundation for confirmatory research with larger samples, control groups, and real-time behavioral and physiological data.
AdamsV.BurgerS.CrawfordK.SetterR. (2018). Can You Escape? Creating an Escape Room to Facilitate Active Learning. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 34(2), E1–E5. https://doi.org/10.1097/NND.0000000000000433
2.
Adriana Cárdenas-RobledoL.Hernández-UribeÓ.RetaC.Antonio Cantoral-CeballosJ. (2022). Extended reality applications in industry 4.0. – A systematic literature review. In Telematics and Informatics (Vol. 73). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101863
3.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155–173.
4.
AronsonS.IkumaL.NahmensI. (2025). Using digital/virtual escape rooms to measure team performance and cohesion of isolated multicultural teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103671
5.
Auqui‐CaceresM.FurlanA. (2023). Revitalizing double‐loop learning in organizational contexts: A systematic review and research agenda. European Management Review, 20(4), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12615
6.
BandalosD. L. (2014). Relative Performance of Categorical Diagonally Weighted Least Squares and Robust Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.859510
7.
BaxterG.HaineyT. (2024). Using immersive technologies to enhance the student learning experience. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2023-0078
8.
BlackmoreK. L.SmithS. P.BaileyJ. D.KrynskiB. (2024). Integrating Biofeedback and Artificial Intelligence into eXtended Reality Training Scenarios: A Systematic Literature Review. In Simulation and Gaming (Vol. 55, Issue 3, pp. 445–478). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241236688
9.
CohenT. N.GriggsA. C.KanjiF. F.CohenK. A.LazzaraE. H.KeeblerJ. R.GewertzB. L. (2021). Advancing team cohesion: Using an escape room as a novel approach. Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25160435211005934
10.
CohenT. N.GriggsA. C.KeeblerJ. R.LazzaraE. H.DohertyS. M.KanjiF. F.GewertzB. L. (2020). Using Escape Rooms for Conducting Team Research: Understanding Development, Considerations, and Challenges. Simulation and Gaming, 51(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120907943
11.
de GiorgioA.MonettiF. M.MaffeiA.RomeroM.WangL. (2023). Adopting extended reality? A systematic review of manufacturing training and teaching applications. In Journal of Manufacturing Systems (Vol. 71). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2023.10.016
12.
DeliceF.RousseauM.FeitosaJ. (2019). Advancing teams research: What, when, and how to measure team dynamics over time. In Frontiers in Psychology (Vol. 10, Issue JUN). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01324
13.
GormanJ. C.DunbarT. A.GrimmD.GipsonC. L. (2017). Understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1053.
14.
GuptaA.CarpenterD.MinW.MottB.GlazewskiK.Hmelo-SilverC. E.LesterJ. (2023). Enhancing Stealth Assessment in Collaborative Game-Based Learning with Multi-task Learning. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Vol. 13916 LNAI (pp. 304–315). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36272-9_25
15.
HensonR. K.RobertsJ. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. In Educational and Psychological Measurement (Vol. 66, Issue 3, pp. 393–416). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
16.
IjsselsteijnW. A.De KortY. A. W.PoelsK. (2013). The game experience questionnaire. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 3–9.
17.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. In Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 56, pp. 517–543). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
18.
JaloH.PirkkalainenH. (2024). Effect of user resistance on the organizational adoption of extended reality technologies: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Information Management, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102731
19.
JungD. I.SosikJ. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/10496402033003002
20.
KanawattanachaiP.YooY. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00019-7
21.
KaufmanG. F.FlanaganM.SeidmanM. (2015). Creating Stealth Game Interventions for Attitude and Behavior Change: An “Embedded Design” Model. DiGRA Conference. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463728805_ch05
22.
KeithM. J.DeanD. L.GaskinJ.AndersonG. (2021). Team Building through Team Video Games: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Serious Games, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/28896
23.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
24.
KlammaR.SousD.HensenB.KorenI. (2020). Educational escape games for mixed reality. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 12315 LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57717-9_41
KnollT.LiaqatA.Monroy-HernándezA. (2023). ARctic Escape: Promoting Social Connection, Teamwork, and Collaboration Using a Co-Located Augmented Reality Escape Room. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585841
27.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2009). The Learning Way: Meta-cognitive Aspects of Experiential Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713
28.
KrekhovA.EmmerichK.RotthalerR.KruegerJ. (2021). Puzzles Unpuzzled. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5. (CHI PLAY). https://doi.org/10.1145/3474696
MayerI.BekebredeG.HarteveldC.WarmelinkH.ZhouQ.Van RuijvenT.LoJ.KortmannR.WenzlerI. (2014). The research and evaluation of serious games: Toward a comprehensive methodology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 502–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12067
31.
MilgramP.KishinoF. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.
32.
MinottiK.LoupG.HarquinT.OtmaneS. (2024). Exploring Immersive Debriefing in Virtual Reality Training: A Comparative Study. 30th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3641825.3687748
33.
PanX.HamiltonA. F. de C. (2018). Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12290
34.
PetersenG. B.PetkakisG.MakranskyG. (2022). A study of how immersion and interactivity drive VR learning. Computers & Education, 179, 104429. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2021.104429
35.
PhanM. H.KeeblerJ. R.ChaparroB. S. (2016). The development and validation of the game user experience satisfaction scale (GUESS). Human Factors, 58(8), 1217–1247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816669646
36.
RahimiS.ShuteV. J. (2023). Stealth assessment: a theoretically grounded and psychometrically sound method to assess, support, and investigate learning in technology-rich environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10232-1
37.
RahimiS.ShuteV. J. (2024). Stealth assessment: a theoretically grounded and psychometrically sound method to assess, support, and investigate learning in technology-rich environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(5), 2417–2441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10232-1
38.
RebeloT.LourençoP. R.DimasI. D. (2019). The journey of team learning since “The Fifth Discipline.”The Learning Organization, 27(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-10-2019-0144
39.
RogelbergS. (2007). Input–Process–Output Model of Team Effectiveness. In Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952651.n136
40.
SalasE.DiazGranadosD.KleinC.BurkeC. S.StaglK. C.GoodwinG. F.HalpinS. M. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50(6). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375009
41.
SalasE.GrossmanR.HughesA. M.CoultasC. W. (2015). Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human Factors, 57(3), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815578267
42.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
43.
SeersA. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5
44.
ShufflerM. L.DiazGranadosD.SalasE. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. In Current Directions in Psychological Science (Vol. 20, Issue 6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422054
45.
ShuteV.RahimiS.SmithG.KeF.AlmondR.DaiC. P.KubaR.LiuZ.YangX.SunC. (2021). Maximizing learning without sacrificing the fun: Stealth assessment, adaptivity and learning supports in educational games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12473
46.
TabordaC. L.NguyenH.BourdotP. (2025). Engagement and Attention in XR for Learning: Literature Review. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 15445 LNCS, 207–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78593-1_13
47.
TingaA. M.de BackT. T.LouwerseM. M. (2019). Non-invasive neurophysiological measures of learning: A meta-analysis. In Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (Vol. 99, pp. 59–89). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.001
48.
Vanden AbeeleV.NackeL. E.MeklerE. D.JohnsonD. (2016). Design and preliminary validation of the player experience inventory. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1145/2968120.2987744
49.
VasarainenM.PaavolaS.VetoshkinaL. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review on Extended Reality: Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality in Working Life. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.20870/ijvr.2021.21.2.4620
50.
VeldkampA.van de GrintL.KnippelsM.-C. P. J.van JoolingenW. R. (2020). Escape education: A systematic review on escape rooms in education. Educational Research Review, 31, 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100364
51.
WarmelinkH.MayerI.WeberJ.HeijligersB.HaggisM.PetersE.LouwerseM. (2017). AMELIO: Evaluating the team-building potential of a mixed reality escape room game. Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130859.3131436
52.
WidamanK. F.HelmJ. L. (2023). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Data analysis and research publication (Vol. 3) (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000320-017
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.
