Rehearsal‐based digital serious boardgame versus a game‐free e‐learning tool for anatomical education: Quasi‐randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Serious games may resolve problems relating to low motivation in complex medical topics such as anatomy. However, they remain relatively novel introductions to the science of learning, and further research is required to ascertain their benefits. This study describes the overall development and testing of a digital serious boardgame designed to facilitate the rehearsal of musculoskeletal anatomy based on self‐determination theory with considerations for the psychological state of Flow. It was hypothesized that students assigned to the intervention game condition would attain higher Flow scores, a measure of engagement and intrinsic motivation, than students assigned to the game‐free control, and that the intervention condition would report either superior or non‐superior, but not inferior, scores on a surprise recall test. A total of 36 second‐year undergraduate medical students participated in the quasi‐randomized controlled trial, where the intervention groups went first and randomly drew questions that were mirrored into the control groups. All students were administered an identical 10‐question baseline assessment before their interventions, the Short Flow Scale immediately after, and a surprise test four‐to‐six weeks later. Independent samples t‐tests indicated that students of both conditions were of similar baseline knowledge (t = 0.7, p = 0.47), significantly higher Flow scores in the game condition (t = 2.99, p = 0.01), and no significant differences between surprise test scores (t = −0.3, p = 0.75). The game appears to be an appropriate game‐based tool for student rehearsal of anatomical education, stemming from a strong theoretical base that facilitates high engagement and intrinsic motivation.

Impact of Facilitation on Cognitive Flow in a Novel Diabetes Management Rehearsal Game for Health Professions Education: Mixed Methods, Open-Label, Superiority Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Power calculations were performed via Sealed Envelope sample size calculations [ 68 ], with an α level of 5%, 90% power, and the anticipated control group means of 4 (0.5 above the mean of 3.5 due to games innately being conduits of flow) and anticipated intervention means of 5.05 (15% higher than the control), and an SD of 1. The increase of 15% was based on the results of prior studies comparing game-based interventions and established nongame controls on the results of the FSS [ 69 , 70 ]. An estimated 22 subjects per group for an overall 44 was expected.…”