Making believe, together: A pilot study of the feasibility and potential therapeutic utility of a family tabletop role-playing game.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interventions for children and their families have traditionally stemmed from two interrelated frameworks: play-based child therapies, and family therapies (Gil, 2015). Integrated family play therapy frameworks aim to capitalize on the strengths of both approaches by combining meaningful engagement of children through play, and systems-level insights into patterns of family functioning and interaction (Gil, 2015). A virtually unexplored avenue for play-based therapeutic applications of role-play that may lend themselves to an integrated family play therapy framework are tabletop role-playing games (TRPGs); cooperative and narrative-based games wherein players adopt the role of fictional characters as they navigate a fantasy setting arbitrated by a game master. Case studies on the use of TRPGs with children and young adults have yielded initial evidence of their potential therapeutic utility (e.g., Blackmon, 1994; Enfield, 2007; Rosselet & Stauffer, 2013), however, research on their application is limited, particularly with families. The current study pilot tested an original TRPG module (“The Family Tabletop Adventure”) for use with families to establish the module’s potential therapeutic utility and identify targets for further refinement. A sample of three family groups (N = 11) were recruited to participate in six weekly online sessions (a 1-hour introductory session, four 1.5- to 2-hour game sessions, and a 1-hour exit interview). A variety of mixed-method measures were used to assess family functioning at baseline and post-game, including observational coding, self-report, and qualitative group interviews. Exploratory analyses of the findings indicated the module’s feasibility of implementation and ease of use, low iatrogenic risk, perceptions by families as fun and engaging, and potential utility across a range of family processes relevant to therapeutic contexts, including communication and problem solving, positive interactions and relationship building, and the generation of novel insights about family members. Family feedback was used to identify several targets for additional refinement of the game module to improve families’ comprehension and engagement with the game. The implications of these findings and their relevance to the use of TRPGs in family intervention contexts are discussed.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".