2 165 REVIEW OF APPLIED & CASUAL GAMES FOR MENTAL HEALTH Figure A.13b Forest plot of standardised effect sizes of studies examining negative affect with casual games Andrade et al. 2019 Poppelaars et al. 2018 Russell & Newton, 2008 Ferguson & Rueda, 2010 Ferguson et al. 2016 Russell & Newton, 2008 Valadez & Ferguson, 2012 Ferguson & Rueda, 2010 Casual game vs Active condition Casual game+ (violent) vs Casual game (nonviolent) Casual game (violent) vs Passive condition Cohen's d [95% CI] -0.27 [-0.61, 0.06] -0.08 [-0.42, 0.27] -0.12 [-0.49, 0.25] 0.22 [-0.34, 0.77] -0.07 [-0.67, 0.53] 0.49 [0.12, 0.87] -0.15 [-0.84, 0.54] 0.39 [-0.17, 0.94] -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Favours comparison group Favours casual (+) game Negative Affect Notes. In the study of Poppelaars, Lichtwarck-Aschoff, et al. (2018) participants played the game in pairs. The average cluster size was 2.00 and the ICC for negative affect at post was 0.0018, resulting in a design effect of 1.00. The adjusted effect size was therefore the same as the unadjusted effect size reported in the forest plot. The same applied to the study of Russell & Newton (2008) in which participants played as much as possible in pairs. Based on the ICC found in Poppelaars, Lichtwarck-Aschoff, et al. (2018), the adjusted effect size was the same as the unadjusted effect size reported in the forest plot. The study of Andrade et al. (2019) used cluster randomisation. The adjusted effect size was calculated based on an average cluster size of 17.50 and an ICC of 0.0018 (i.e., design effect = 1.03), which gave a Cohen’s d of -0.27, with 95% CI [-0.62, 0.07]. CI = confidence interval, ICC = intracluster/intraclass correlation coefficient.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw