Misrepresentation of Health Research in Exertion Games Literature

Marshall, Joe; Linehan, Conor

doi:10.1145/3025453.3025691

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviewer instructions should make it clear that reviewers must follow up citations that they are uncertain about and read source material. Further to this, reviewers should specifically consider whether the motivation of papers is well founded, to avoid situations where people do work which is based on objectively false assumptions and, which hence serves no useful purpose (see [8]). …”

Section: How Can We Inject Critique Into Chi?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Throwaway Citation of Prior Work Creates Risk of Bad HCI Research

Marshall

Linehan

Spence

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to the full text of the published version may require a subscription. Rights AbstractIn CHI papers, citation of previous work is typically a shallow, throwaway action that demonstrates little critical engagement with the work cited. We present a citation context analysis of over 3000 citations from 69 papers at CHI2016, which demonstrates that only 4.8% of papers cited are presented as anything other than uncontested fact. In 43% of CHI papers sampled, we found no evidence of any critical engagement. Lack of discussion and critique of previous work can encourage the spread of misunderstandings and errors. Authors, reviewers and publication venues must all change practices to respond to this failure of scholarship.

show abstract

Section: How Can We Inject Critique Into Chi?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, we believe that this is an underlying cause of multiple failures of interdisciplinary working in HCI which we detail in accompanying publications [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Throwaway Citation of Prior Work Creates Risk of Bad HCI Research

Marshall

Linehan

Spence

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing technology to make movement based playful activities more appealing could help to (partially) counter this trend [29] as it seems to be a promising way to encourage children [24,30,31], teenagers [32], adults [33], and elderly people [34] to move more at least on a short-term basis [35]. A few warnings recognisable in the work of Marshall & Linehan for providing a transparent argumentation related to physical activity is to not overestimate (long-term) effects of exertion games, to recognise the importance of food intake when considering weight loss, as well as to recognise that discouraging certain health-related behaviours can go against what users actually want [36]. Marshall & Linehan also point out that researchers active in the HCI domain should be careful in interpreting the literature from other research fields.…”

Section: Stimulate Physically Active Behaviour and Sport Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Players can influence lightning strikes and with them the cells that slowly evolve over time. 36 Parés and Parés created Lightpools [143]. Four players are given a lantern that tracks their position, and each player gets a circle projected underneath the lantern.…”

Section: Interactive Screen Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-located augmented play-spaces: past, present, and perspectives

Delden

Gerritsen

Heylen

et al. 2018

J Multimodal User Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, many different studies regarding Co-located Augmented Play-spaces (CAPs) have been published in a wide variety of conferences and journals. We present an overview. The work presented in these papers includes end user's perspectives as well as researcher's perspective. We place these within four aspects in this review: (1) Argumentation, the underlying reasons or the higher end goals to investigate interactive play from a user's perspective, (2) Systems, the kind of systems that are created, this includes their intended use which fits the end user's perspective, (3) Evaluation, the way in which the researchers evaluate the system, (4) Contribution, the goal of the studies from the researcher's perspective; what does the study contribute to the research community. CAPs are often multimodal in nature; this survey pays attention to the multimodal characteristics in relation to all four aspects. This overview contributes a clearer view on the current literature, points out where new opportunities lie, and hands us the tools for what we think is important: bringing the end-user and research perspective together in intervention based evaluations. In short, this paper discusses CAPs: their past, the present, and the perspectives.

show abstract

Savouring our mistakes: Learning from the FitQuest project

Robertson

Macvean

Fawkner

et al. 2018

International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although serious games for children can potentially have important social, educational and health benefits, the research process from initial game design to a robust evaluation is lengthy and complex. This paper describes the design and evaluation process of an exergame for children. It reports on the inconclusive results of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted among children aged 10-11 years attending 10 state-funded primary schools in Scotland. One class in each school was randomly allocated to intervention (n=5, 111 children) or control (n=5, 104 children). Intervention schools were given FitQuest, a smartphone game for the Android platform, and were requested to play the game during at least one hour of mandated Physical Education (PE) lessons per week for 5 weeks. Participants in the control arm took part in standard mandated PE lessons. Primary outcome measures were step count, minutes spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and exercise self-efficacy. None of the children spent the recommended time per week playing FitQuest. There were no significant differences in step count, MVPA or self-efficacy by intervention group. The paper reflects on possible flaws during the design and evaluation process which could have led to the disappointing results, and presents some proposals for improving the research process for developing serious games for children. These include: deepening the ways in which we interact with domain expert colleagues, developing a shared understanding of the expectations for different phases of evaluation, closing the gap between game design knowledge and domain theories, raising

show abstract

Misrepresentation of Health Research in Exertion Games Literature

Cited by 25 publications

References 57 publications

Throwaway Citation of Prior Work Creates Risk of Bad HCI Research

Throwaway Citation of Prior Work Creates Risk of Bad HCI Research

Co-located augmented play-spaces: past, present, and perspectives

Savouring our mistakes: Learning from the FitQuest project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About