MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983440585 · doi:10.1089/g4h.2019.0070

Design Elements During Development of Videogame Programs for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Stakeholders' Viewpoints

2019· article· en· W2983440585 on OpenAlexaff
Parisa Ghanouni, Tal Jarus, Jill G. Zwicker, Joseph M. Lucyshyn, Brooke Fenn, Elyse Stokley

Bibliographic record

VenueGames for Health Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteSunny Hill Health Centre for ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderViewpointsThematic analysisMirroringPsychologyAutismPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Focus groupFlexibility (engineering)Typically developingApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Research has demonstrated that videogame programs can be an effective intervention targeting social challenges among children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite the rapid growth in developing videogame programs, incorporation of stakeholders' views has been limited. Objective: This project aimed to identify the design elements that should be considered during development of videogame programs for children with ASD, from the perspectives of stakeholders. Materials and Methods: We involved 26 stakeholders, including parents of children with ASD, youth with ASD, and clinicians working with individuals with ASD in focus groups and interviews. Results: Thematic analysis yielded three themes: (1) addressing heterogeneity and diverse needs; (2) mirroring real world; and (3) teaching strategies. Conclusion: Incorporating these elements during development of videogame programs can help enhance the outcomes for children with ASD. By including stakeholders' voices, it is assumed that the developed videogame programs may serve as user-friendly and engaging tools to potentially complement traditional interventions when overcoming social difficulties in individuals with ASD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGames for Health JournalSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207