The Play Experience Scale: Development and Validation of a Measure of Play
Post on 15-May-2023
0 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Running Head: THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 1
The Play Experience Scale: Development and Validation of a Measure of Play
Davin Pavlas1,3
, Florian Jentsch1,3
, Eduardo Salas1,3
, Stephen M. Fiore2,3
, & Valerie Sims1
1Department of Psychology
2Department of Philosophy
3Institute for Simulation & Training
University of Central Florida
Word count:
4,026 (excludes abstract, précis, key points, and references)
Word limit:
4,500 (research report)
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 2
Abstract
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 under-examined. One reason for this gap is the
absence of a scale that measures play experience.
Methods: 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. 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
(AVE) of the PES and the intrinsic motivation scale (IMS).
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.
Keywords: serious games, play, measure, motivation, game, PES
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 3
Précis: Though games and play are of growing interest to the human factors community, no
psychometric scale of play exists. A play experience scale was created and validated through two
empirical studies. Analysis suggests the Play Experience Scale (PES) is a valid instrument for
investigating play in video games.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 4
The Play Experience Scale:
Development and Validation of a Measure of Play
Play is an essential component of the human experience. Humans seek play not only as
children but also as adults (Anderson, 1998). Play can even be found outside of the human
species, as animals have been shown to engage in spontaneous play (Van Leeuwen & Westwood,
2008). Despite the pervasiveness of play activities, there is a surprising paucity of play
assessment instruments in the literature. Although there are measures of playfulness (i.e., the
propensity of an individual to engage in play; Webster & Martocchio, 1992) and observational
ratings scales for child play exist throughout the developmental literature (e.g., Knox, 1997), a
self-report scale of play behavior is markedly absent. This gap is even more surprising given the
recent surge in investigations into the science of games (e.g., Chertoff, Jerome, Martin, & Knerr,
2008; Cotton, Mayes, Jentsch, & Sims, 2001; Pavlas, Heyne, Bedwell, Lazzara, & Salas, 2010).
Although the human factors community has embraced games for training (e.g., Gopher, Weil, &
Bareket, 1994; Lampton, Bliss, Orvis, Kring, & Glenn, 2009) and examined the basic science of
games, the field has not more closely examined the psychological correlates of game play.
The present research expands upon these recent undertakings through the development
and initial validation of the Play Experience Scale (PES). First, a brief description of the
construct of play is provided. Then, the contents of the initial prototype are described, as are two
empirical studies to test its validity and establish its psychometric properties. Finally, results and
implications for future research are presented.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 5
Play
Intuitively, play is simple to recognize. Defining play in a scientifically useful manner is
more difficult. On the most basic level, play is an intrinsically motivated (autotelic) activity free
of extrinsic goals or consequences (O'Connor & LaPoint, 1980), even though extrinsic
motivators are often present in sports, games for learning, and performances, i.e., in activities
that also include play as a component. These activities can further be characterized based on the
player’s degree of attention—that is, whether it is focused on their play behavior rather than their
external needs or goals (Calleja, 2007; Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008).
Beyond attention and motivation, the notion of freedom within rule frames is key to
understanding play (Gordon, 2008; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Zimmerman describes play as
"the free space of movement within a more rigid structure," noting that, "play exists because of
and also despite the more rigid structures of a system" (Zimmerman, in Esposito, 2005, p. 3).
Finally, play may be construed as a modifier for other behaviors, rather than as its own behavior
(Millar, 1968). This distinction is important, as it establishes that play is not a behavior unto
itself but rather something that can contain a wide range of behaviors. Even work activities can
be play; given, however, that work is often considered the opposite of play (Gitlin-Weiner,
1998), it is reasonable to assume that work-play is ―less‖ play-like due to its explicit external
contingencies.
Scale Constructs and Content
Based on the play literature described in the preceding section, we defined play as
behaviors that: (a) are predominantly intrinsically motivated; (b) are performed freely by the
player; (c) require and capture the player’s attention; and (d) are not contingent by external
rewards or consequences. Using these four definitional elements (see Table 1), a candidate Play
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 6
Experience Scale (PES) was developed. Responses to the 20 items of the PES-20 were indicated
via a six-point Likert scale ranging from ―strongly disagree‖ (= 1) to ―strongly agree‖ (= 6).
Though the items were created for the context of video games, care was taken to ensure that the
wordings could be changed to refer to other play contexts. In the following sections, the
theoretical underpinnings of these categories are discussed.
Insert Table 1 about here
Autotelic Experience
The first set of items in the PES-20 assessed intrinsic motivation through the lens of
autotelic experience. When an experience is autotelic, an individual engages in it solely for its
own rewards (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008). In other words, the experience is
intrinsically motivating (Malone, 1981). Consequently, the wording of the items in this category
reflected an internal source of drive (e.g., ―I wanted to‖ and ―I felt like‖).
Freedom
The second set of items targeted freedom. When an individual is free in a play context,
they are able to perform the actions they wish to perform. The notion of self-determination
within the artificial rule set of a play experience is inherent to modern definitions of play (Salen
& Zimmerman, 2004), and thus motivated items assessing freedom as a concept. Items in this
category reflected this direction, referring to the ―wants‖ of the individual within play, as well as
their ability to act on those wants (e.g., self-determination in leisure motivation; Weissinger &
Bandalos, 1995).
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 7
Focus
The focus category targeted the states of immersion, concentration, and attentional
narrowing in definitions of play. Immersion is a popular topic in the games literature, describing
a state of intense concentration that is related to engagement (McMahan, 2003) and flow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). When an individual is immersed in their play experience, the salience
of non-play concerns diminishes (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008). In other words,
individuals who are immersed are focused on the task at hand; their attention and concentration
is allocated to the play task. Items in this category reflected this loss of concern and focused
concentration.
Absence of Extrinsic Motivation
The fourth set of items was based on the construct of extrinsic motivation. Unlike
intrinsic motivation, which emerges from the individual, extrinsic motivation is created through
external impositions (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Most commonly, these impositions take the form of
rewards or punishments (Benabou & Tirole, 2003). Items in this category addressed whether the
respondents felt there were consequences to their play, whether via evaluative judgment by
another entity or through real-world consequences for task performance.
Direct Play Assessment
The last set of questions in the draft PES assessed whether the individual believed they
engaged in play. Unlike the others, this category did not target any particular aspect of play, but
simply play itself. Because of the relative scarcity of play research, there was little to guide the
creation of these questions other than the inherent opposition between work and play (e.g.,
O’Connor & LaPoint, 1980; Yee, 2005). Additionally, these items directly referenced play,
whereas the other four categories did not directly employ the word ―play.‖
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 8
Study 1
The 20-item Play Experience Scale (PES-20) was tested via a game-based experiment to
establish its psychometric properties and theoretical alignment.
Method
Participants. Two-hundred-twenty-six undergraduates (80 male, 146 female) enrolled at
the University of Central Florida participated for course credit. Participants’ ages ranged from 18
to 58 years, with a mean age of 21.02 years (SD = 4.95).
Materials. Three games were used as the conditions for the study: (a) a Flash version of
the classic computer game Tetris, (b) the adaptive game flOw, and (c) a custom-designed letter
search task. The search task was purposely designed to be ―boring,‖ comprising only the
minimum elements required to make the task a game (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002).
Measures. To determine the psychometric properties and theoretical alignment of the
Play Experience Scale, the PES-20 was joined by measures assessing playfulness, intrinsic
motivation, and extrinsic motivation.
Computer Playfulness Scale. As a measure of trait playfulness (Webster & Martocchio,
1992), the Computer Playfulness Scale (CPS) served as a potential indicator of the PES’s
suitability. The seven-item Likert-scale was anchored from ―strongly disagree‖ (= 1) to ―strongly
agree‖ (= 7).
Intrinsic Motivation Scale. Given the importance of intrinsic motivation to the definition
of play, a measure thereof was key to establishing the PES’s validity. An outcome Intrinsic
Motivation Scale (IMS) measuring respondent reaction to items assessing interest, tension, effort,
and competence (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989) was used. The 18-item scale had six
Likert-style anchors ranging from ―strongly disagree‖ to ―strongly agree‖.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 9
Situational Motivation Scale. The external regulation and amotivation components of the
Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) served as the study’s measure of extrinsic motivation
(Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000). The 16-item scale had six Likert-style anchors ranging
from ―strongly disagree‖ to ―strongly agree‖.
Design. The experiment used a 3 x 2 mixed-model design. The between-subjects variable
was ―game type‖ with three levels (i.e., Tetris vs. flOw vs. letter search task). The two-level
within-subjects variable was trial block (first vs. second).
Procedure. Participants were assigned to one of the three game conditions. After
obtaining answers to demographics and the CPS, participants were tasked with playing their
assigned game for five minutes and completing three measures: the PES-20, IMS, and SIMS.
Participants then played a second five-minute round, and again completed the PES-20, IMS, and
SIMS.
Results
Of the 226 participants, 203 provided complete data sets (i.e., completed both game
rounds and surveys). There were no significant differences between participants who completed
and those who dropped from the experiment in terms of age, gender, or condition. Table 2 shows
the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the primary study variables. For the
following analyses, the second-round responses were used (unless otherwise noted).
Insert Table 2 about here
Data Screening. First, the data were assessed for their suitability for factor analyses.
Nineteen of the 20 items were significantly correlated (p < .05) at least r (201) = .25 with another
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 10
item, suggesting their suitability for factor analysis. Similarly, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
of sampling adequacy was .88, which was well above the recommended value of .60. Finally,
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (2(190) = 2256.83, p < .001). Based on these
statistics, we deemed factor analysis appropriate.
Candidate Scale Structure and Pruning. The underlying structure of the scale was
examined to determine whether it reflected the previously defined dimensions. A principal
component analysis (PCA) extraction with manual five-component truncation was followed by
oblique rotation via Promax (due to expected inter-correlations). Results suggested that the
original five-factor theory was not represented in the data. Instead, the first component consisted
of a merging of the focus and autotelic experience subscales. The fifth component of the scale
consisted of the reverse coded items of the scale.
Next, the scale was pruned to remove four flawed or ineffective items: Item 16 failed to
load onto any of the components and was dropped alongside component 1’s three lowest-loading
items. These changes resulted in a symmetrical 16-item scale (PES-16), which was examined
once more using PCA with Promax rotation. In this iteration, only the components with
Eigenvalue > 1 were retained, which removed Item 4 from the scale due to its ambiguous loading
pattern. A test of the diagnosticity of each element of the scale for the game condition variable
using multiple linear regression (see Table 3) further removed Item 1.
Insert Table 3 about here
A final PCA using Promax was then conducted to examine the properties of the resultant
14-item scale (PES-14). Though the scale was not symmetrical (see Table 4), its items loaded
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 11
cleanly onto theory-consistent components. A confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor
model suggested the PES-14 showed good fit (2(71)=158, p < .001; GFI = .90; SRMR = .06).
This version of the scale was also significantly and positively correlated with playfulness (r(201)
= .20, p < .001). Given these indicators, the PES-14 was used for further analysis.
Insert Table 4 about here
Reliability. Responses to the scale were very slightly skewed (skew = -0.05) and mildly
platykurtic (kurtosis = -0.57). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for both administrations of the
PES-14. The reliability estimates for the both administrations of the PES-14 were high; alpha
equaled .83 in the first, and .86 in the second administration of the PES-14. Test-retest reliability
was established by examining correlations between the first and second administration of the
PES-14 (r (201) = .73, p < .001).
Convergent Validity. As the construct of play is conceptually similar to that of state-
based intrinsic motivation, correlations between the PES and the IMS were calculated (see Table
5). The correlation between the scales was high (r(201) = .79, p < .001), supporting the
convergent validity of the scale. In addition, the PES-14 and the state-based amotivation subscale
of the SIMS (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000) were negatively correlated (r (201) = -.35, p
< .001). Finally, the PES-14’s relationship to the state-based external regulation (e.g., extrinsic
motivation) subscale of the SIMS was negative (r(201) = -.20, p < .01). Since theory suggests
that play is positively related to intrinsic motivation but negatively to external regulation
(O’Connor & LaPoint, 1980), convergent validity was supported.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 12
Discriminant Validity. The discriminant validity of the PES-14 was assessed by
comparing the average variance extracted (AVE; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Farrell, 2009) to the
squared correlation of the PES-14 and the IMS. AVE values were calculated using Construct
Validity Calculator 2.0 (Md-Basir et al., 2010). The 14-item PES had an AVE of 0.68; the IMS’s
AVE was 0.77 (see Table 5 for scale correlations). Both of these were higher than the squared
correlation between PES and IMS, r2 = 0.62. Thus, although the two scales were highly
correlated, the PES and intrinsic motivation scales showed discriminant validity.
Insert Table 5 about here
Construct Validity. Because another measure of play, as such, did not exist, construct
validity was assessed by comparing PES aggregated means in the two game conditions (designed
to involve play) to the search task condition (as ―play-free‖ as possible) via ANOVA. Mean
scores for the combined game conditions (M Games = 4.56, SD = 0.73) were significantly higher
than for the search task condition (M Search Task = 3.57, SD = 0.57, F(1,201) = 96.94, 2 = .32, p <
.001). Construct validity was also assessed by the correlation between playfulness as measured
by the Computer Playfulness Scale (CPS) and the PES-14 (r(201) = .20, p < .001).
Discussion
The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the psychometric properties of the initial,
theoretically derived PES. After pruning to 14 items, the scale showed high reliability and
correlated with existing measures of theoretically related constructs. Further, Study 1 provided
evidence of good discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity from the relationships of the
PES-14 with established scales of motivation and playfulness, and the study manipulation. As
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 13
expected, the PES-14 was positively correlated with intrinsic motivation (IMS) and playfulness
(CPS), but negatively correlated with the amotivation and external regulation components of the
Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). These results align with theory.
Study 2
Study 1 suggested that the 14-item version of the PES could serve as an adequate and
meaningful measure of play experience in video games. However, because the PES-14 was non-
symmetrical, the impact of the Freedom dimension (with only 2 items) might be underestimated
in overall PES-14 scores unless practitioners averaged within each scale first. Consequently, we
developed a symmetrical, 16-item version (see Table 6) of the scale by adding two items to the
freedom dimension. To avoid introducing new concepts to the scale, the items added were
similar to the two freedom items already present in the scale (i.e., focused on the player being
able to make the game do what they wanted to do). In Study 2, we tested whether adding the
items had resulted in any change to the scale’s reliability or validity. We also increased the
generalizability of the Study 2 findings by using a previously developed serious game, InnerCell
(Pavlas, Heyne, Bedwell, Lazzara, & Salas, 2010).
Method
Participants. A sample of 77 undergraduate volunteers (36 male, 41 female) enrolled at
the University of Central Florida participated in Study 2 for course credit. They ranged in age
from 18 to 27 years (M = 18.84 yrs, SD = 1.71).
Materials. InnerCell is a strategy game that requires players to learn about the immune
system while defending a patient's body from infection (Pavlas et al., 2010). Players direct the
body's immune cells to defeat pathogens, with each pathogen being vulnerable to a particular
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 14
combination of cells and treatments. Each successive round of gameplay increases in difficulty
and complexity, providing new pathogens and options.
Measures. As Study 2 was not only a validation effort for the PES but also an
investigation of a theoretical model of learning and behavior in serious games, several additional
measures were employed. However, for the purposes of this second validation effort, we report
only on those measures meaningful to the validation. These were the 16-item revision of the PES
(PES-16), the CPS (Webster & Martocchio, 1992), and the IMS (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen,
1989).
Design. This validation effort was part of a non-experimental study examining participant
behaviors and states across a variety of dimensions (e.g., play, motivation, emotion,
performance) within the InnerCell serious game. Given this, there was no manipulated
independent variable. Participants engaged in gameplay across three rounds, with a variety of
measures, including the PES, collected after each round.
Procedure. Participants completed a short set of demographic and pre-measures and
viewed a simple training video explaining the InnerCell game. They then played the game for
three full rounds. Between each round, participants responded to the PES. Finally, participants
completed the intrinsic motivation measure and learning assessments.
Insert Table 6 about here
Results
As previously noted, two items had been added to the PES-14 to make it symmetrical.
The revised 16-item PES-16 (see Table 6) was very highly correlated with the PES-14 (r = .99, p
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 15
< .001). Further, mean scores of the PES-16 (M = 4.61, SD = .69) were significantly and
positively correlated with intrinsic motivation (IMS) (M = 4.07, SD = .76; r = .66, p < .001).
Based on item-total correlation, the two new items (items 1 and 4) were meaningful contributors
to the overall scale (item 1: r(74) = .74, p < .001; item 2: r(74) = .53, p < .001). Given the
correlation between the 14-item and the 16-item versions of the scale and the item-total
correlations, it was reasonable to suggest that the 16-item version of the scale did not reduce the
validity of the PES.
Cronbach’s alphas for each of the three administrations of the 16-item version of the
scale were calculated, ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 (Round 1 = .90; Round 2 = .89; Round 3
= .86). For comparison, alphas for the 14-item version of the scale were also calculated (Round 1
= .89; Round 2 = .88; Round 3 = .86). These scores also indicated good reliability.
The utility of the extrinsic motivation items of the PES was also examined. These items
were identical in both the PES-14 and the PES-16. In Study 1, the extrinsic motivation items
were not strongly related to the PES. Consequently, in Study 2, item-total correlations for the
scale were examined to ascertain whether the change in game context resulted in greater meaning
for these items. Items 5 through 8 showed more reasonable item-total correlations (ranging from
.38 to .60) in this outcome-oriented context, suggesting they be retained in the final version of
the scale.
Finally, the link between playfulness and play was examined. The correlation between
mean scores on the CPS and the PES-16 was the same as in Study 1 (r = .20), but not statistically
significant in Study 2 (r(72) = .20, p = .09), due to its smaller sample size (dfStudy1 = 201 vs.
dfStudy2 = 72).
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 16
Discussion
Study 2 served to provide additional validation of the Play Experience Scale. Although
factor analysis was not possible due to sample size restrictions, evidence based on correlations
suggested that the two items added to the scale did not alter its meaning or psychometric
properties.
Study 2 also added a learning evaluation which provided participants with a degree of
external motivation and addressed concerns over Study 1’s lack of context for the external
motivation items. This also increased the generalizability of the results from Study 2 to other
game contexts.
The lack of a significant correlation between playfulness and play in Study 2 appeared to
present a problematic result at first. The actual correlations between play and playfulness,
however, were approximately the same in both Study 1 and Study 2 (r = .20); only the
probability values were different due to different sample sizes. Although this was encouraging,
correlations of .20 only explain 4% of the variance in play by playfulness. This rather low value
may be due to several reasons: First, the link between actual behavior and an individual’s traits
or attitudes can be weak (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) or complicated by external factors (Kraus,
1995). Second, the low correlations may suggest limited construct validity of the Computer
Playfulness Scale, a concern previously mentioned in the literature (e.g., Kruger, 1995). Further
research will be required to delve into the relationship between playfulness and play.
Overall Discussion
The research reported here was conducted to fill a particular need: until now, no scale
measuring the subjective experience of play existed. Though it was possible to measure
playfulness (i.e., propensity to play), no measure was available assessing an individual’s
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 17
manifested play behavior. The Play Experience Scale (PES) was created based on a number of
definitions of play, with an emphasis placed on using concepts that were tied to established
psychological theory.
In two validation studies, the PES’s relationships to existing measures of intrinsic
motivation, external regulation, and amotivation emerged as expected. As suggested by theory,
play behavior was positively correlated with intrinsic motivation, negatively correlated with
external regulation, and negative correlated with amotivation. The scale was also sensitive to
variations in task characteristics in that the restricted, tedious, and decidedly ―non-play‖ word
search task in Study 1 was associated with lower PES scores.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the validation efforts reported in this article were fruitful, additional
investigations into the PES are warranted. First, even though the scale was validated in four
different video game contexts, it is still in need of validation in other settings. In particular, this
effort only examined the utility of the PES within the context of video games. However, play is
observed across the full range of human experience. Future research efforts should examine the
PES in other contexts (e.g., music, performance, sport, work).
Second, the scale was only examined with a relatively limited population (i.e., young
college students). The scale may have different psychometric properties when employed with
different populations. Future research should investigate how the PES functions for different
kinds of respondents.
Third, play as measured by the PES and the propensity for ―Playfulness‖ (here measured
by the CPS) showed only relatively small correlations between the two measures (r ≈ .20) in
both studies. Further research is required to determine whether this reflects the actual magnitude
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 18
of the relationship between the two constructs, is due to external factors influencing trait-
behavior correlations, or is a sign of validity issues for the CPS (e.g., Kruger, 1995) or the PES-
16.
Finally, although the PES-16 consists of four subscales, we do not suggest that these
subscales be used diagnostically, as they were not validated for such use. Validation against non-
subjective measures of emotional experience may provide further evidence to determine the
overall appropriateness of the PES. For example, modeling emotional experience through
physiological indicators such as galvanic skin response, electromyography, and heart rate can
provide additional insight into how individuals respond to play experiences (Mandryk & Atkins,
2007). Tying these objective measures of experience to the newly developed subjective measure
of play would provide an excellent addition to the present validation efforts.
Conclusion
The Play Experience Scale (PES) fills a conspicuous gap in the game literature. Because
play is one of the defining characteristics of games (Ang, 2006; Baranauskas, Neto, & Borges,
1999), the toolset available to researchers investigating game-based learning is incomplete
without a method by which to investigate play. With the creation and validation of this new
scale, it is now possible for researchers to directly examine play experiences in games using a
simple post-task measure. Further, the general lack of play studies is indicative of a large
theoretical gap in the literature. The introduction of a scale that assesses play experience will
hopefully spark a surge of interest into investigating how play influences a wide range of
behaviors, states, and experiences.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 19
Key Points:
Though games are a subject of growing interest to the field, the study of games is
constrained by the lack of a measure of play as a subjective experience.
The 16-item version of the Play Experience Scale (PES-16) is a short, yet valid and
reliable measure of play in conventional video games.
The Computer Playfulness Scale (CPS) may require further examination, as extant
concerns over its validity were corroborated by this study.
Further validation and modification of the PES is required for use in other non-video
game contexts.
References
Anderson, M. (1998). The meaning of play as a human experience. In D. P. Fromberg, & D.
Bergen (Eds.) Play from birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, (pp. 103–108). New York:
Harvard University Press.
Ang, C. S. (2006). Rules, gameplay, and narratives in video games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3),
306–325. doi:10.1177/1046878105285604.
Azjen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.
Baranauskas, M. C. C., Neto, N. G. G., & Borges, M. A. F. (1999). Learning at work through a
multi-user synchronous simulation game. In Proceedings of the PEG 99 Conference, (pp.
137–144). Exeter, UK.
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of Economic Studies,
70(3), 489–520. doi: 10.1111/1467-937X.00253.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 20
Calleja, G. (2007). Revising immersion: A conceptual model for the analysis of digital game
involvement. In Proceedings of the DiGRA 2007 Conference.
Chertoff, D. B., Jerome, C., Martin, G. A., & Knerr, B. W. (2008). GamePAB: A game-based
performance assessment battery application. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 52nd
Annual Meeting (pp. 1570-1573).
Cotton, J., Mayes, D., Jentsch, F., & Sims, V. (2001). The relationship between video game
characteristics and player ability. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic
Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 945-947).
Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in
video games. Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 20:1–27. doi:
10.1145/1371216.1371223.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Esposito, N. (2005). A short and simple definition of what a videogame is. In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds at Play.
Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty,
and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research, 63, 324-327. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv- able
variables and measurement error. Journal of Market Research, 18(1), 39–50.
doi:10.2307/3151312.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and
practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 21
Gitlin-Weiner, K. (1998). Clinical perspectives on play. In D. P. Fromberg, & D. Bergen (Eds.)
Play from birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings, (pp. 77–93).
Routledge.
Gopher, D., Weil, M., Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to
flight. Human Factors, 36(3), 387-405.
Gordon, G. (2008). What is play? In search of a universal definition. Play and Culture Studies, 8.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion,
24(3), 175–213.
Knox, S. (1997). Development and current use of the Knox Preschool Play Scale. In L. D.
Parham & L. S. Fazio (Eds.), Play in occupational therapy for children (pp. 35-51). St.
Louis, MO: Mosby.
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical
literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58-75.
doi:10.1177/0146167295211007
Kruger, A. (1995). The adult playfulness scale: A review. Psychology: A Journal of Human
Behavior, 32, 36–38.
Lampton, D., Bliss, J., Orvis, K., Kring, J., & Martin, G. A. (2009). A distributed game-based
simulation training research testbed. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomic Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1989-1993).
Malone, T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 54, 333–369. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(81)80017-1.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 22
Mandryk, R. L., & Atkins, M. S. (2007). A fuzzy physiological approach for continuously
modeling emotion during interaction with play technologies. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 65, 329–347. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.011.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. (1989). Causal attributions and affective reactions to
disconfirming outcomes in motor performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 11(2), 187–200.
McMahan, A. (2003). Immersion, engagement and presence: A new method for analyzing 3-D
video games. In M. J. P. Wolf, & B. Perron (Eds.) The video game theory reader, (pp.
67–87). New York: Routledge.
Md-Basir, H., Mahzan, S., Mokhtar, N., Abdl-Aziz, N., Rahman, M. A., & Daud, D. (2010). The
online construct validity calculator version 2.0.
http://www.hishammb.net/cvc2/index.asp.
Millar, S. (1968). The psychology of play. Oxford, England: Penguin Books.
O’Connor, J., & LaPoint, J. (1980). The phenomenon of play: A multi-dimensional definition.
Recreation Sports Journal, 5(1), 6–11.
Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., & Salas, E. (2010). Game-based learning: The
impact of flow state and videogame self-efficacy. In Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomic Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 2398-2402).
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 23
Van Leeuwen, L. & Westwood, D. (2008). Adult play, psychology, and design. Digital
Creativity, 19(3), 153-161.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure
with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 201–226. doi:10.2307/249576.
Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D. (1995). Development, reliability and validity of a scale to
measure intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4).
Yee, N. (2005). The labor of fun: How video games blur the boundaries of work and play.
Games and Culture, 1(1), 68-71.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 24
Appendix A
Table 1: Initial play experience scale
# Item Text Dimension/Coding 1 I felt that I was free to use whatever strategy I wanted to while I was
using the game Freedom
2 I was able to make the game do what I wanted it to Freedom 3 The game gave me the freedom to act how I wanted to Freedom 4 The game made it difficult to do what I wanted to do Freedom (R) 5 I was not worried about someone judging how I performed in the
game No extrinsic
6 Regardless of how I performed in the game, I knew there wouldn’t be
a real-world consequence No extrinsic
7 My performance in the game was not going to matter outside of the
game No extrinsic
8 I felt like I had to do well, or the experimenter would judge me No extrinsic (R) 9 When I was using the game, it felt like I was playing rather than
working Play-direct
10 I would characterize my experience with the game as ―playing‖ Play-direct 11 I was playing a game rather than working Play-direct 12 Using the game felt like work Play-direct (R) 13 When I was using the game, I didn’t worry about anything in the real
world Focus
14 I was able to concentrate on the game without thinking about other
things Focus
15 When I was using the game, I was focused on the task at hand Focus 16 I had a hard time concentrating on the game Focus (R) 17 I wanted to do well in the game, "just because" Autotelic 18 When I was using the game, I wanted to do as well as possible Autotelic 19 I tried to succeed in the game because I felt like it Autotelic 20 During the game, my performance didn’t matter to me Autotelic (R)
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 25
Table 2: Study 1 means, standard deviations, and correlations
Mean SD Age Gender Gamer Playful PES R1 PES R2 Motiv R1 Motiv R2 Ext R1 Ext R2 Amot R1
Age 21.01 4.95
Gender N/A N/A -0.24*** Gamer N/A N/A 0.17* -0.48***
Playful 5.59 0.78 0.05 0.05 0.07
PES R1 4.36 0.78 -0.09 -0.07 0.12 0.09 PES R2 4.22 0.83 -0.04 0.01 0.11 0.20** 0.73***
Motiv R1 3.82 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.05 0.67*** 0.61***
Motiv R2 3.76 0.84 0.06 -0.03 0.17* 0.10 0.64*** 0.79*** 0.80*** Ext R1 3.55 1.18 -0.23** 0.09 -0.16* -0.07 -0.23*** -0.33*** -0.27*** -0.37***
Ext R2 3.51 1.15 -0.26*** 0.12 -0.10 -0.09 -0.11 -0.20** -0.19** -0.27*** 0.76***
Amot R1 3.29 1.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.06 -0.06 -0.31*** -0.41*** -0.43*** -0.46*** 0.60*** 0.48*** Amot R2 3.36 1.08 -0.07 -0.03 -0.10 -0.04 -0.25*** -0.35*** -0.30*** -0.40*** 0.52*** 0.58*** 0.72***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Gender shows correlations for female participants (0 = male, 1 = female).
R1 = Round 1, R2 = Round 2, Playful = Computer Playfulness Scale, Gamer = Self-reported gamer status from demographics,
PES = Play Experience Scale,
Motiv = Intrinsic Motivation, Ext = SIMS External Regulation, Amot = SIMS Amotivation
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 26
Table 3: PES individual item – game condition regression
Item B SE t Sig.
Item 1 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.77
Item 2 0.15 0.02 0.42 6.64 0.00***
Item 3 0.10 0.03 0.27 3.99 0.00***
Item 5 0.06 0.02 0.17 2.47 0.01*
Item 6 0.03 0.03 0.07 1.00 0.32
Item 7 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.52 0.61
Item 8 0.05 0.02 0.13 1.84 0.07
Item 9 0.17 0.02 0.58 0.00 0.00***
Item 10 0.18 0.02 0.59 0.00 0.00***
Item 11 0.18 0.02 0.58 0.00 0.00***
Item 12 0.17 0.02 0.57 0.00 0.00***
Item 15 0.13 0.02 0.36 0.00 0.00***
Item 17 0.11 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00***
Item 18 0.11 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00***
Item 19 0.09 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00***
* p < .05, *** p < .001
Note: All regressions run individually to determine univariate impact.
For all cases, df = 1,201
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 27
Table 4: Principal component analysis: 14-item PES
Item C1 C2 C3 C4 Communality
Item 2 -.07 .14 -.03 .87 0.81
Item 3 -.10 -.01 .01 .94 0.80
Item 5 .08 -.03 .76 .16 0.67
Item 6 .01 .07 .67 -.12 0.43
Item 7 .36 -.36 .57 .15 0.55
Item 8 -.30 .27 .79 -.12 0.67
Item 9 .20 .79 -.02 -.01 0.81
Item 10 .17 .76 -.01 .10 0.82
Item 11 .18 .75 -.04 .11 0.82
Item 12 -.12 .90 .11 -.03 0.73
Item 15 .72 .03 -.05 .20 0.71
Item 17 .83 .12 .08 -.12 0.74
Item 18 .91 .04 -.05 -.06 0.81
Item 19 .90 .06 .01 -.14 0.76 Factor loadings >.40 shaded. Oblique rotation conducted using the Promax function. The four components
accounted for 72.41% of the total variance in the 14 items.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 28
Table 5: Scale correlations, round 2
PES-14 PES-4 Playfulness IMS SIMS External
PES-14
PES-4 0.76***
Playfulness 0.20** 0.12
IMS 0.79*** 0.63*** 0.10
SIMS External -0.20** -0.12 -0.09 -0.27***
SIMS Amotivation -0.35*** -0.33*** -0.04 -0.40*** 0.58*** ** p <.01, *** p <.001
N = 203, two-tailed significance values reported.
PES-14 = Play Experience Scale 14 item, PES-4 = Play Experience Scale 4 item, IMS = Intrinsic Motivation Scale,
SIMS = Situational Motivation Scale
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 29
Table 6: Play scale 16-item version
# Item Text Dimension/Coding
1 If I wanted to do something in the game, I was able to do it Freedom 2 I was able to make the game do what I wanted it to Freedom 3 The game gave me the freedom to act how I wanted to Freedom 4 The game made it difficult to perform the actions that I wanted
to Freedom (R)
5 I was not worried about someone judging how I performed in
the game No extrinsic
6 Regardless of how I performed in the game, I knew there
wouldn’t be a real-world consequence No extrinsic
7 My performance in the game was not going to matter outside
of the game No extrinsic
8 I felt like I had to do well, or the experimenter would judge me No extrinsic (R) 9 When I was using the game, it felt like I was playing rather
than working Play-direct
10 I would characterize my experience with the game as playing Play-direct 11 I was playing a game rather than working Play-direct 12 Using the game felt like work Play-direct (R) 13 When I was using the game, I was focused on the task at hand Autotelic-Focus 14 I wanted to do well in the game, "just because" Autotelic-Focus 15 When I was using the game, I wanted to do as well as possible Autotelic-Focus 16 I tried to succeed in the game because I felt like it Autotelic-Focus Note: Item numbers do not correspond to original item numbers, due to removal of original items.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 30
Biographies
Davin Pavlas is a recent graduate of the Applied Experimental & Human Factors Psychology
doctoral program at the University of Central Florida. Davin obtained his Ph.D. in 2010 through
a dissertation that established a model of flow and play in games for learning. As a researcher at
the Institute for Simulation and Training, Davin works on a variety of projects that examine
teams using simulations. To date, his research has examined the relationship between aesthetics
and usability in user interfaces, the nature of flow state in games, the attributes of serious games
that contribute to learning, and the role of play experience in learning.
Florian Jentsch is director of the Team Performance Laboratory, and an Associate Professor of
Psychology at the University of Central Florida, with a joint appointment in the Department of
Psychology and at the Institute for Simulation & Training. He received his Ph.D. in human
factors psychology at the University of Central Florida in 1997. He also holds master's degrees in
aeronautical engineering from the Technical University of Berlin and in aeronautical science
from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. His dissertation for junior flight crewmembers won
the APA 1998 George E. Briggs Award for the best dissertation in applied/experimental
psychology. Florian also won the APA Earl Allusi award in 2002 for early career achievement.
He has co-authored over 150 publications, presentation, and technical reports, with research
ranging from pilot training and aviation research, to transportation security x-ray baggage
screening and human robot teaming.
Eduardo Salas is Trustee Chair and Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida
where he also holds an appointment as Program Director for the Human Systems Integration
Research Department at the Institute for Simulation and Training. Previously, he was the
Director of UCF's Applied Experimental & Human Factors Ph.D. Program. Before joining IST,
he was a senior research psychologist and Head of the Training Technology Development
Branch of NAWC-TSD for 15 years. Dr. Salas has co-authored over 300 journal articles & book
chapters and has co-edited 19 books. His expertise includes assisting organizations in how to
foster teamwork, design and implement team training strategies, facilitate training effectiveness,
manage decision making under stress, and develop performance measurement tools. Dr. Salas
received his Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Old Dominion University in 1984.
Stephen M. Fiore is on the faculty of the University of Central Florida’s Cognitive Sciences
Program in the Department of Philosophy and is the director of the Cognitive Sciences
Laboratory at the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Simulation and Training. He
earned his Ph.D. degree (2000) in cognitive psychology from the University of Pittsburgh,
Learning Research and Development Center.
Valerie Sims is the director of the Applied Cognition and Technology (ACAT) Laboratory and
an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida. Her research centers
primarily around individual differences in spatial ability and human-robot interaction. She
received her Ph.D. in applied cognitive psychology from the University of California, Santa
Barbara in 1996.
THE PLAY EXPERIENCE SCALE 31
Acknowledgments
The InnerCell game used in this study was created as a result of earlier research that was
partially supported by subcontract No. 0450-1382 from Aptima under prime contract from the
Naval Air Warfare Center, contract No. N68335-07-C-0444. All opinions expressed in this paper
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the University of
Central Florida, Aptima, or the Department of Defense.
top related