Home › Research › Prevention trials
What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games
Chesham A, Wyss P, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, Nef T.. JMIR serious games, 2017-04-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results Overall, enjoyment and acceptance of casual game characteristics was high and significantly above the midpoint of the rating scale for all CVG genres. Mixed model analyses revealed that ratings of enjoyment and casual game characteristics were significantly influenced by CVG genre. Participants' mean enjoyment of casual puzzle games (mean 0.95 out of 1.00) was significantly higher than that for casual simulation games (mean 0.75 and 0.73). For casual game characteristics, casual puzzle and simulation games were given significantly higher game-play ratings than casual action games. Similarly, participants' control ratings for casual puzzle games were significantly higher than that for casual action and simulation games. Finally, ownership was rated significantly higher for casual puzzle and strategy games than for casual action games.
Key findings
- Results Overall, enjoyment and acceptance of casual game characteristics was high and significantly above the midpoint of the rating scale for all CVG genres.
- Mixed model analyses revealed that ratings of enjoyment and casual game characteristics were significantly influenced by CVG genre.
- Participants' mean enjoyment of casual puzzle games (mean 0.95 out of 1.00) was significantly higher than that for casual simulation games (mean 0.75 and 0.73).
- For casual game characteristics, casual puzzle and simulation games were given significantly higher game-play ratings than casual action games.
- Similarly, participants' control ratings for casual puzzle games were significantly higher than that for casual action and simulation games.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants16
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR serious games) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 16 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28420601) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Chesham, A., Wyss, P., Müri, R. M., Mosimann, U. P., & Nef, T. (2017). What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games. JMIR serious games. https://doi.org/10.2196/games.7025
Vancouver
Chesham A, Wyss P, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, Nef T. What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games. JMIR serious games. 2017. doi:10.2196/games.7025. PMID: 28420601.
BibTeX
@article{chesham2017-28420601,
author = {Chesham, A. and Wyss, P. and Müri, R. M. and Mosimann, U. P. and Nef, T.},
title = {{What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games}},
journal = {JMIR serious games},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.2196/games.7025},
pmid = {28420601},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/games.7025}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.