Evaluating the validity of game-based assessments measuring cognitive function among children and adolescents: A...

Games offer advantages over traditional methods of assessing cognitive function among children and adolescents. However, the validity of game-based assessments has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the validity of game-based assessments measuring cognitive function among children and adolescents. We systematically searched several databases using pre-defined inclusion criteria. For papers that met the criteria, we extracted and analyzed the cognitive functions measured by each study, the correlation coefficients between game-based and traditional assessments, and factors that could influence the validity of game-based assessments. Our review identified 19 articles featuring 20 studies, 18 games, and 378 unique correlations between game-based and traditional assessments of cognitive function. Game-based assessments yielded significant correlations (n=282, 75%) with traditional assessments, over half of which were in the low to medium range in strength (r=0.3-0.69, n=227, 80%). Factors related to the child, such as age, gender, and prior gaming experience, may influence the validity of game-based assessments by modifying performance on game-based assessments. In addition, we found that game-based assessments that measured cognitive functions across more than one neurocognitive domain and used a prediction model for scoring were more likely to yield significant correlations. In contrast, including a narrative storyline in a game-based assessment was less likely to yield significant correlations. Most studies were of good quality, although the lack of sample size justification was a limiting factor. Further research is needed to elucidate the influence of identified factors on the validity of game-based assessment to justify the wide adoption of game-based assessments of cognitive function among children and adolescents.