Effects of a Serious Game for Adolescent Mental Health on Cognitive Vulnerability: Pilot Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescent mental health is of utmost importance. E-mental health interventions, and serious games in particular, are appealing to adolescents and can have beneficial effects on their mental health. A serious game aimed at improving cognitive vulnerability (ie, beliefs or attitudes), which can predispose an individual to mental health problems, can contribute to the prevention of these problems in adolescents. Objective: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of the prototype of a serious game called "Silver." Methods: The prototype of the serious game was developed using a user-centered participatory design. The prototype of Silver focused on 1 aspect of a serious game for improving cognitive vulnerability in adolescents, that is, the recognition and identification of cognitive distortions. Through the game, players were required to identify and classify the character's thoughts as helpful or unhelpful. Upon successful advancement to the next level, the task becomes more challenging, as players must also identify specific types of cognitive distortions. A pre- and posttest uncontrolled design was used to evaluate the game, with a 1-week intervention phase in which participants were asked to play the game. Participants aged 12-16 years were recruited in schools. The outcomes of interest were the recognition of cognitive distortions and presence of participants' cognitive distortions. The game was also evaluated on its effects, content, and usefulness. Results: A total of 630 adolescents played Silver and completed the assessments. Adolescents were significantly better at recognizing cognitive distortions at the pretest (mean 13.09, SD 4.08) compared to the posttest (mean 13.82, SD 5.09; t629=-4.00, P<.001). Furthermore, their cognitive distortions decreased significantly at the posttest (mean 38.73, SD 12.79) compared to the pretest (mean 41.43, SD 10.90; t629=7.98, P<.001). Participants also indicated that the game helped them recognize cognitive distortions. Many participants considered the game appealing (294/610, 48.2%) but boring (317/610, 52%) and preferred a more comprehensive game (299/610, 49%). Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that a serious game may be an effective tool for improving cognitive vulnerability in adolescents. The development of such a serious game, based on the prototype, is recommended. It may be an important and innovative tool for the universal prevention of mental health problems in adolescents. Future research on the effects of the game is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".