IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i03p671-677_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correcting Misconceptions About Gamification of Assessment: More Than SJTs and Badges

Author

Listed:
  • Armstrong, Michael B.
  • Ferrell, Jared Z.
  • Collmus, Andrew B.
  • Landers, Richard N.

Abstract

Describing the current state of gamification, Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) provide a troubling contradiction: They offer examples of a broad spectrum of gamification interventions, but they then summarize the entirety of gamification as “the digital equivalent of situational judgment tests.” This mischaracterization grossly oversimplifies a rapidly growing area of research and practice both within and outside of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that situational judgment tests (SJTs) can be considered a type of gamified assessment, and gamification provides a toolkit to make SJTs even more gameful. However, the term gamification refers to a much broader and potentially more impactful set of tools than just SJTs, which are incremental, versatile, and especially valuable to practitioners in an era moving toward business-to-consumer (B2C) assessment models. In this commentary, we contend that gamification is commonly misunderstood and misapplied by I-O psychologists, and our goals are to remedy such misconceptions and to provide a research agenda designed to improve both the science and the practice surrounding gamification of human resource processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Armstrong, Michael B. & Ferrell, Jared Z. & Collmus, Andrew B. & Landers, Richard N., 2016. "Correcting Misconceptions About Gamification of Assessment: More Than SJTs and Badges," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 671-677, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:03:p:671-677_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000699/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard N. Landers & Elena M. Auer & Andrew B. Collmus & Michael B. Armstrong, 2018. "Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 315-337, June.
    2. Richard A. Oxarart & Jeffery D. Houghton, 2021. "A Spoonful of Sugar: Gamification as Means for Enhancing Employee Self-Leadership and Self-Concordance at Work," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Alexander Simons & Isabell Wohlgenannt & Markus Weinmann & Stefan Fleischer, 2021. "Good gamers, good managers? A proof-of-concept study with Sid Meier’s Civilization," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 957-990, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:03:p:671-677_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.