2 159 REVIEW OF APPLIED & CASUAL GAMES FOR MENTAL HEALTH Figure A.8 Forest plot of standardised effect sizes of studies examining depressive symptoms Merry et al. 2012 Poppelaars et al. 2016 Stasiak et al. 2014 Poppelaars et al. 2021 Bohr et al., 2023 Fleming et al. 2012 Poppelaars et al. 2021 Poppelaars et al. 2016 Applied game vs Active condition Applied game vs Casual game Applied game vs Passive condition Cohen's d [95% CI] 0.23 [0.02, 0.43] 0.11 [-0.29, 0.52] 0.00 [-0.73, 0.73] 0.07 [-0.25, 0.38] 0.05 [-0.65, 0.76] 0.62 [-0.14, 1.38] 0.15 [-0.17, 0.46] -0.01 [-0.41, 0.38] -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Favours comparison group Favours applied game Depressive symptoms Notes. The studies of Bohr et al. (2023) and Poppelaars et al. (2016) used cluster randomisation. For Bohr et al. (2023), the adjusted effect size was calculated based on an average cluster size of 3.50 and an ICC of 0.01 (i.e., design effect = 1.03), which gave a Cohen’s d of 0.05 with 95% CI [-0.66, 0.77]. For Poppelaars et al. (2016), the adjusted effect size was calculated based on an average cluster size of 13.42 and an ICC of 0.01 (i.e., design effect = 1.12), which gave for the applied game vs. active condition comparison a Cohen’s d of 0.11, with 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54], and for the applied game vs. passive condition comparison a Cohen’s d of -0.01, with 95% CI [-0.43, 0.40]. Stasiak et al. (2014) report a Cohen’s d of 0.70. Fleming et al. (2012) report a Cohen’s d of 0.77. CI = confidence interval, ICC = intracluster/intraclass correlation coefficient.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw