The Play Experience Scale: development and validation of a measure of play.

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.

Conceptualization and measurement of team workload: a critical need.

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.

Team knowledge research: emerging trends and critical needs.

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.

Demonstration-based training: a review of instructional features.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews instructional features used in demonstration-based training (DBT). BACKGROUND: The need for fast and effective training and performance support that can be accessed from anywhere is a growing need for organizations. DBT programs are one method to address these needs, but a better understanding of how to maximize the effectiveness of DBT activities is needed. Specifically, beyond the content of the demonstration (i.e., the dynamic example of task performance), what instructional features (i.e., information and activities in addition to the demonstration) can be used to improve the effectiveness of DBT interventions? METHOD: The authors conducted a systematic review of the applied and basic science literatures relevant to DBT. RESULTS: Instructional features in DBT can be categorized according to the degree to which they encourage active learner involvement (i.e., active vs. passive), when they occur relative to viewing the demonstration (i.e., pre-, during-, and postdemonstration conditions), and the observational learning process they are intended to augment. Five categories of instructional features are described: passive guidance or support, preparatory activities, concurrent activities, retrospective activities, and prospective activities. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variety of instructional features used in DBT, but more systematic research is needed to understand the conditions under which each is most effective as well as to outline a method for sequencing of demonstration with other delivery methods, such as practice opportunities. APPLICATION: The framework presented in this article can help guide the systematic development of training systems incorporating DBT as well as provide a direction for future research.