Search

Objective: A measure of play experience in video games was developed through literature review and two empirical validation studies.Background: Despite the considerable attention given to games in the behavioral sciences, play experience remains empirically underexamined. One reason for this gap is the absence of a scale that measures play experience.Method: In Study 1, the initial Play Experience Scale (PES) was tested through an online validation that featured three different games (N = 203). In Study 2, a revised PES was assessed with a serious game in the laboratory (N = 77).Results: Through principal component analysis of the Study 1 data, the initial 20-item PES was revised, resulting in the 16-item PES-16. Study 2 showed the PES-16 to be a robust instrument with the same patterns of correlations as in Study 1 via (a) internal consistency estimates, (b) correlations with established scales of motivation, (c) distributions of PES-16 scores in different game conditions, and (d) examination of the average variance extracted of the PES and the Intrinsic Motivation Scale.Conclusion: We suggest that the PES is appropriate for use in further validation studies. Additional examinations of the scale are required to determine its applicability to other contexts and its relationship with other constructs.Application: The PES is potentially relevant to human factors undertakings involving video games, including basic research into play, games, and learning; prototype testing; and exploratory learning studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This article provides a systematic review of the team knowledge literature and guidance for further research.Background: Recent research has called attention to the need for the improved study and understanding of team knowledge. Team knowledge refers to the higher level knowledge structures that emerge from the interactions of individual team members.Method: We conducted a systematic review of the team knowledge literature, focusing on empirical work that involves the measurement of team knowledge constructs. For each study, we extracted author degree area, study design type, study setting, participant type, task type, construct type, elicitation method, aggregation method, measurement timeline, and criterion domain.Results: Our analyses demonstrate that many of the methodological characteristics of team knowledge research can be linked back to the academic training of the primary author and that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge with regard to the relationships between team knowledge constructs, the mediating mechanisms between team knowledge and performance, and relationships with criteria outside of team performance, among others. We also identify categories of team knowledge not yet examined based on an organizing framework derived from a synthesis of the literature.Conclusion: There are clear opportunities for expansion in the study of team knowledge; the science of team knowledge would benefit from a more holistic theoretical approach.Application: Human factors researchers are increasingly involved in the study of teams. This review and the resulting organizing framework provide researchers with a summary of team knowledge research over the past 10 years and directions for improving further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this article is to present and expand on current theories and measurement techniques for assessing team workload.Background: To date, little research has been conducted on the workload experienced by teams. A validated theory describing team workload, which includes an account of its relation to individual workload, has not been articulated.Method: The authors review several theoretical approaches to team workload.Within the team research literature, attempts to evaluate team workload have typically relied on measures of individual workload. This assumes that such measures retain their validity at the team level of measurement, but empirical research suggests that this method may lack sensitivity to the drivers of team workload.Results: On the basis of these reviews, the authors advance suggestions concerning a comprehensive theory of team workload and methods for assessing it in team settings. The approaches reviewed include subjective, performance, physiological, and strategy shift measures. Theoretical and statistical difficulties associated with aggregating individual-level workload responses to a team-level measure are discussed.Conclusion: Conception and measurement of team workload have not significantly matured alongside developments in individual workload.Application: Team workload remains a complex research area without simple measurement solutions, but as a research domain it remains open for contributions from interested and enterprising researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]