166 Chapter 2 Figure A.14 Forest plot of standardised effect sizes of studies examining well-being David et al. 2019b Kato et al. 2008 - minors Kato et al. 2008 - adults Walsh et al. 2019 David et al. 2019b Kuosmanen et al. 2017 Schakel et al. 2020 Sun et al. 2022 Nguyen et al. 2018 Staiano et al. 2018 Applied game vs Active condition Applied game vs Casual game Applied game vs Passive condition Casual game(s) vs Passive condition Cohen's d [95% CI] 0.18 [-0.22, 0.58] 0.17 [-0.09, 0.44] 0.32 [-0.25, 0.89] 0.57 [0.13, 1.00] 0.09 [-0.32, 0.49] 0.35 [-0.14, 0.84] 0.30 [-0.19, 0.79] 0.11 [-0.09, 0.32] 0.18 [-0.04, 0.39] -0.13 [-0.74, 0.49] -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Favours comparison group Favours applied / casual game Well-being Notes. The study of Kuosmanen et al. (2017) used cluster randomisation. The adjusted effect size was calculated based on an average cluster size of 6.00 and an ICC of 0.02 (i.e., design effect = 1.10), which gave a Cohen’s d of 0.35, with 95% CI [-0.16, 0.87]. The study of Sun et al. (2022) used cluster randomisation as well. Because the ICC was close to zero (resulting in a design effect of 1.00), the adjusted effect size was the same as the unadjusted effect size reported in the forest plot. In the study of Kato et al. (2008) different measures for minors and adults were used to measure quality of life and the study is therefore included twice in the forest plot. CI = confidence interval, ICC = intracluster/intraclass correlation coefficient.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw