Development and initial validation of the German version of the Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire (EEQ-G)

Abstract

Background Analyzing and adjusting training programs to increase exercise enjoyment is crucial to achieve long-term adherence and thus also maximize health benefits. The Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire (EEQ) is the first questionnaire specifically developed to monitor exergame enjoyment. To be used in German speaking countries, the EEQ must be translated, cross-culturally adapted, and tested on its psychometric properties. Objectives The aim of this study was to develop (i.e., translate and cross-culturally adapt) the German Version of the EEQ (EEQ-G) and investigate its psychometric properties. Methods Psychometric properties of the EEQ-G were tested using a cross-sectional study design. Each participant performed two consecutive exergame sessions (i.e., ‘preferred’ and ‘unpreferred’ condition) in randomized order and rated the EEQ-G as well as reference questionnaires. Internal consistency of the EEQ-G was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s α. Construct validity was assessed by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rs) between the scores of the EEQ-G and reference questionnaires. Responsiveness was analyzed by performing a Wilcoxon signed-rank test between the median EEQ-G scores of the two conditions. Results Fourty-three healthy older adults (HOA; mean age = 69.4 ± 4.9 years; 53.5% females) were included. Cronbach’s α of the EEQ-G was 0.80. The rs values between the EEQ-G and reference questionnaire scores for intrinsic motivation, game enjoyment, physical activity enjoyment, and external motivation were 0.198 (p = 0.101), 0.684 (p < 0.001), 0.277 (p = 0.036), and 0.186 (p = 0.233), respectively. The EEQ-G was rated higher in the ‘preferred’ than the ‘unpreferred’ condition (p < 0.001, r = 0.756). Conclusion The EEQ-G has high internal consistency and is responsive to changes in exergame enjoyment. The highly skewed data with ceiling effects in some of the reference questionnaires deem the construct validity of the EEQ-G to be inconclusive and thus in need of further evaluation.

Cognitive-motor exergame training on a labile surface in stroke inpatients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

“…The score will be calculated by adding up the points of each question resulting in a minimum of 20 points and a maximum score of 100. The higher the score the greater the exergame enjoyment ( 34 ).…”

Feasibility, usability, and acceptance of “Brain-IT”—A newly developed exergame-based training concept for the secondary prevention of mild neurocognitive disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial

“…Exergame enjoyment was assessed biweekly by self-report using the Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire (EEQ) (Fitzgerald et al, 2020 ). The German version of the EEQ was used, which has shown good internal consistency and is responsive to changes in differing conditions of exergame enjoyment (Manser et al, 2023b ). A total score was calculated according to the scoring guidelines, resulting in a minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 100.…”

“…A total score was calculated according to the scoring guidelines, resulting in a minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 100. A higher score reflects greater enjoyment of playing the exergame (Manser et al, 2023b ).…”

A Newly Developed Exergame-Based Telerehabilitation System for Older Adults: Usability and Technology Acceptance Study

“…The average EEQ scores point to a satisfying enjoyment of the exergames-a result supported by the qualitative analyses of satisfaction with the exergames. Manser et al [73] used similar Dividat exergames to investigate the validity of a German translation of the EEQ in OAs and found similar enjoyment scores. Furthermore, these findings are consistent with those of previous studies by Altorfer et al [14] and Jäggi et al [13], who tested the feasibility of Dividat exergames played on the Senso in different rehabilitation clinics and geriatric inpatient groups, reporting high mean enjoyment levels of 4.78 (SD 0.52) and 4.51 (SD 0.73), respectively, on a 5-point Likert scale.…”