Empirical Data and Results of the Construct Vadility Studies

In this deliverable, the WP5 partners present the results of the FUGA construct validity studies. The objective of the WP5 was to establish the construct validity of the different potential measures of game experience based on the different measurement techniques. This was the first step to ensure that the game experience measures meet the psychometric criteria that are commonly applied to self-report and behavioral measures. Given that the aim was to thoroughly understand and describe emotion and experience during gaming, the measurements addressed experience at its various response levels, i.e., subjective (cognitive and emotional), behavioral, psychophysiological, and neural. Different measures were construct-validated against the self-report and think-aloud methods and the convergent and discriminant relations between the different measures and between the different types of game episodes were examined. In order to validate and calibrate the objective measures, the GEQ (see Deliverable 3.3) was previously developed. The theoretical work performed by all partners in the FUGA project (Deliverable 2.1) provided a firm and broad basis for the development of the questionnaire. The GEQ has a modular structure, consisting of the core questionnaire (GEQ-Core), probing multiple components of players’ experience while gaming, the post-game questionnaire (PGQ), probing gamers’ experience after the gaming session and any after effects, and the social presence module (SPGQ), probing players’ experience of and involvement with their co-player(s). Additionally, a short in-game version of the GEQ was developed, the iGEQ, for probing in-game experience multiple times during a gaming session. Although questionnaires are sensitive to significant biases and experimental demand characteristics, self-report data provides valuable insights into the subjective aspects of an experience when used in combination with objective corroborative indicators. The GEQ measurements were used by all partners as one accepted representation of game experience, to serve as a comparison to other measures to be construct-validated. Although the GEQ played a central role in validating the objective game experience measures, the project partners used also other self-report methods for this purpose. Where appropriate, the validity studies also involved the use of multiple measures so that convergent and discriminant relations could be identified. For example, several different psychophysiological, behavioral, and implicit measures were included that could be validated against each other (for example, HMTH used Lexical Decision Task, Affect Misattribution Procedure, Self-Description Task, and Implicit Association Test to examine the same constructs; see section 2.2). Think-aloud method described in Deliverable 3.4 was also used in construct-validating fMRI measures, thus offering an additional approach to measure game experience. To further facilitate comparisons between the different game experience measures, the plan was to use the same game by different partners, where possible. In WP4, the partner HGO/BTH created a modification of a commercial game Half-Life 2 named FUGAmod, designed to provide an ecologically valid digital game that would also support the experimental designs described in Deliverable 3.1. (more information on stimulus game production is available in section 3 of D3.1). However, not all experiments allowed the use of FUGAmod. For example, a mobile psychophysiological experiment had to be performed with a handheld console not able to run the game engine the mod is based on, and experiments using implicit measures had to use clear-cut roles (such as soldier, racer) which the mod couldn't provide. Nevertheless, the project goals benefit from the fact that a common stimulus game was used in the construct validity studies of the different measures. ￼ ￼In section 2.1, CKIR presents the results of the construct validation of psychophysiological measures of game experience in the laboratory and real-life contexts, where facial electromyography (EMG), electrodermal activity (EDA), electroencephalography (EEG), physical movement (acceleration) sensors, and cardiac measures were used. In section 2.2, HMTH presents their validation process of seven different implicit methods focusing on the concepts of identification and self-esteem, putatively important facets of game experience. In section 2.3, UKA focused on flow and its neurophysiological correlates in the brain, providing evidence for validity of the fMRI method in studying game experience. HGO/BTH used a multimethod approach to look into the effect of difficulty of a game level, reported in section 2.4. And finally, in section 2.5, TUE presents the results of their work focusing on behavioral measures, Gaming Experience Questionnaire (GEQ), and their cross-validation. Because not all analyses could be done within the timeframe of WP5, more detailed and comprehensive results will be reported in the publications of the project. In the Annex I, it was stated that the construct validity studies in WP5 are critical for the success of the project. Although some of the expected relationships did not gain support from the present studies, mostly the results increased our confidence that many of the measures examined can be used to index game experience. Therefore, the reliability and predictive validity studies (in WP6 and WP7) have a solid base to start from and can be carried out mostly as planned. The changes are explained in the partners' respective sections.