Exploring a Gaming-Based Intervention for Unemployed Young Adults: Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Promoting positive psychologies that promote resilience such as a growth mindset could be beneficial for young, unemployed adults, as many lack the self-esteem and self-efficacy to cope with job search adversity. These young people may be reached at scale through the web-based delivery of self-administered positive psychology interventions. However, past studies report unsatisfying user experiences and a lack of user engagement. A gaming-based experience could be an approach to overcoming these challenges. OBJECTIVE: Our research objective was to explore how young, unemployed adults experience a positive psychology intervention designed as a game to extract learning and principles for future intervention research and development. METHODS: To respond to the research question, a team of researchers at the University of Stavanger worked with designers and developers to conceptualize and build a gaming-based intervention. Feedback from the users was collected through formative usability testing with 18 young adults in the target group. Retrospectively, recordings and notes were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to extract learnings for the purposes of this paper. RESULTS: A total of 3 themes were identified that pinpoint what we consider to be key priorities for future gaming interventions for unemployed young adults: adaptation to user preferences (eg, need for responding to user preferences), empathic player interaction (eg, need for responsiveness to user inputs and a diverse set of interaction modes), and sensemaking of experience and context (eg, need for explicit presentation of game objectives and need for management of user expectations related to genre). CONCLUSIONS: Feedback from end users in usability-testing sessions was vital to understanding user preferences and needs, as well as to inform ongoing intervention design and development. Our study also shows that game design could make interventions more entertaining and engaging but may distort the intervention if the game narrative is not properly aligned with the intervention intent and objectives. By contrast, a lack of adaptation to user needs may cause a less motivating user experience. Thus, we propose a structured approach to promote alignment between user preferences and needs, intervention objectives, and gameplay.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".