research-article

Open access

Giggle gauge: a self-report instrument for evaluating children's engagement with technology

Authors:

Brenna McNally,

Elizabeth FossAuthors Info & Claims

IDC '20: Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference

Pages 614 - 623

https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394393

Published: 21 June 2020 Publication History

Abstract

The Giggle Gauge offers a quick and simple way for researchers to evaluate the engagement of systems designed for children. This self-report metric is based on prior work delineating the components of engagement and was designed to address the limitations of children's cognitive development (e.g., by focusing on simple language and rapid administration). Through a process of iterative design (N = 23, ages 4 -- 10) and co-design (N = 8, ages 7 -- 11), we refined the items of this metric to ensure children's comprehension. A validation study with 26 children, ages 4 -- 7, confirmed the validity and reliability of the Giggle Gauge through the assessment of three properties: known-groups validity, criterion validity, and test-retest reliability. We simultaneously developed a bifurcated response type, intended to reduce the cognitive load of traditional ordinal response, and show through participant quotes that it may decrease the cognitive load of self-report questions for children.

References

[1]

Sharon Airey, Lydia Plowman, Daniel Connolly, and Rosemary Luckin. 2002. Rating children's enjoyment of toys, games and media. In 3rd World congress of the international toy research association on toys, games and media, London.

[2]

Juergen Baumgartner, Naomi Frei, Mascha Kleinke, Juergen Sauer, and Andreas Sonderegger. 2019. Pictorial System Usability Scale (P-SUS): Developing an Instrument for Measuring Perceived Usability. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 69.

Digital Library

[3]

Mark Blythe and Andrew Monk. 2018. Funology 2: from usability to enjoyment. Springer.

[4]

Robert Boice. 1983. Observational skills. Psychological Bulletin 93, 1 (1983), 3.

[5]

Susan Carey. 1988. Conceptual differences between children and adults. Mind & Language 3, 3 (1988), 167--181.

[6]

Susan Carey. 2009. The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.

[7]

Christine T. Chambers and Charlotte Johnston. 2002. Developmental differences in children's use of rating scales. Journal of pediatric psychology 27, 1 (2002), 27--36.

[8]

Michelene TH Chi. 1976. Short-term memory limitations in children: Capacity or processing deficits? Memory & Cognition 4, 5 (1976), 559--572.

[9]

Keith Coaley. 2014. An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. Sage.

[10]

Jacob Cohen. 1992. A power primer. Psychological bulletin 112, 1 (1992), 155.

[11]

Stewart I. Donaldson and Elisa J. Grant-Vallone. 2002. Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of business and Psychology 17, 2 (2002), 245--260.

[12]

Allison Druin. 1999. Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 592--599.

Digital Library

[13]

Allison Druin. 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology. (2002).

[14]

Daniel Fitton, Janet C. Read, and John Dempsey. 2015. Exploring children's designs for maker technologies. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 379--382.

Digital Library

[15]

Helen Forman. 2015. Events and children's sense of time: a perspective on the origins of everyday time-keeping. Frontiers in psychology 6 (2015), 259.

[16]

Libby Hanna, Kirsten Risden, and Kirsten Alexander. 1997. Guidelines for usability testing with children. interactions 4, 5 (1997), 9--14.

Digital Library

[17]

Susan Harter and Robin Pike. 1984. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child development (1984), 1969--1982.

[18]

Carrie L. Hicks, Carl L. von Baeyer, Pamela A. Spafford, Inez van Korlaar, and Belinda Goodenough. 2001. The Faces Pain Scale-Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain 93, 2 (2001), 173--183.

[19]

David R. Hodge and David Gillespie. 2003. Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research 27, 1 (2003), 45--55.

[20]

Alex Kuhn, Chris Quintana, and Elliot Soloway. 2009. StoryTime: a new way for children to write. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 218--221.

Digital Library

[21]

Brenda Laurel. 2013. Computers as theatre. Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

[22]

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC. 2019. Kids Digital Media Report.

[23]

Walter Loban. 1976. Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report No. 18. (1976).

[24]

Herbert W. Marsh. 1986. Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology 22, 1 (1986), 37.

[25]

Jum C. Nunnally. 1978. Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill series in psychology). Mcgraw-Hill College.

[26]

Heather L. O'Brien, Paul Cairns, and Mark Hall. 2018. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 112 (2018), 28--39.

[27]

Heather L. O'Brien and Elaine G. Toms. 2008. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology 59, 6 (2008), 938--955.

[28]

Heather L. O'Brien and Elaine G. Toms. 2010. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61, 1 (2010), 50--69.

[29]

Jaclyn Ocumpaugh, Ryan S. Baker, and Ma. Mercedes Rodrigo. 2015. Baker Rodrigo Ocumpaugh monitoring protocol (BROMP) 2.0 technical and training manual. New York, NY and Manila, Philippines: Teachers College, Columbia University and Ateneo Laboratory for the Learning Sciences 60 (2015).

[30]

Janet C. Read and Stuart MacFarlane. 2006. Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children. 81--88.

Digital Library

[31]

Janet C. Read, Stuart MacFarlane, and Chris Casey. 2002. Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children's fun. In Interaction design and children, Vol. 2. Shaker Publishing Eindhoven, 1--23.

[32]

Kathleen Roskos, Karen Burstein, and Byeong-Keun You. 2012. A Typology for Observing Children's Engagement with eBooks at Preschool. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 11, 2 (2012).

[33]

Charlotte Brasic Royeen. 1985. Adaptation of Likert scaling for use with children. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 5, 1 (1985), 59--69.

[34]

Jennifer Sturgess, Sylvia Rodger, and Anne Ozanne. 2002. A review of the use of self-report assessment with young children. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 65, 3 (2002), 108--116.

[35]

Henry M. Wellman. 1992. The child's theory of mind. The MIT Press.

[36]

Richard H. Wilson and Rachel McArdle. 2007. Intra-and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 18, 10 (2007), 813--825.

[37]

Karen Wynn. 1990. Children's understanding of counting. Cognition 36, 2 (1990), 155--193.

[38]

Bieke Zaman. 2009. Introducing a pairwise comparison scale for UX evaluations with preschoolers. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 634--637.

Digital Library

Cited By

Hartley KRubegni EUnderwood LFinney JBall THodges SDe Halleux PDevine JAnderson EMoskal M(2024)Meet MicroCode: a Live and Portable Programming Tool for the BBC micro:bitProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3628516.3656995(355-370)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3628516.3656995
Zhang CZhou ZHu YLiu LWu JShao YLiu JZhang LLiu LChen HYing FYao C(2023)Observe It, Draw It: Scaffolding Children’s Observations of Plant Biodiversity with an Interactive Drawing ToolProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3585088.3589380(253-266)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585088.3589380
Lee YKim TKim SYun YKim J(2023)DAPIE: Interactive Step-by-Step Explanatory Dialogues to Answer Children’s Why and How QuestionsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581369(1-22)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581369
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Giggle gauge: a self-report instrument for evaluating children's engagement with technology

Recommendations

Autistic Children's Use of Technology and Media: A Fieldwork Study
IDC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children

This qualitative field study conducted at a school for autistic children aimed to explain how low and medium functioning autistic children use technology at school. Additionally, it explored education professionals and parents' attitudes and concerns ...
Individual Differences of Children with Autism in Robot-assisted Autism Therapy
HRI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Research has recognized the importance of individual differences of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) that require interventions to meet their heterogeneous needs. This relatively large-scale study investigates a robot-assisted autism therapy (...
Challenges and Opportunities for Interactive Technology to Support Parents of HIV-Positive Children in Ethiopia in the Disclosure Process
CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Fearing stigma, parents often hide their children's HIV diagnosis from them, and postpone disclosure, in turn negatively impacting children's well-being. Our work explores whether interactive technology can support disclosure. In the first study, we ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

IDC '20: Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference

June 2020

642 pages

ISBN:9781450379816

DOI:10.1145/3392063

General Chairs:
Elisa Rubegni
University of Lancaster, UK
,
Asimina Vasalou
University College London, UK
,
Program Chairs:
Narcís Parés
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
,
Nitin Sawhney
Aalto University, Finland

Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 June 2020

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

IDC '20

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

IDC '20: Interaction Design and Children

June 21 - 24, 2020

London, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 172 of 578 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
872
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)319
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)61

Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hartley KRubegni EUnderwood LFinney JBall THodges SDe Halleux PDevine JAnderson EMoskal M(2024)Meet MicroCode: a Live and Portable Programming Tool for the BBC micro:bitProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3628516.3656995(355-370)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3628516.3656995
Zhang CZhou ZHu YLiu LWu JShao YLiu JZhang LLiu LChen HYing FYao C(2023)Observe It, Draw It: Scaffolding Children’s Observations of Plant Biodiversity with an Interactive Drawing ToolProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3585088.3589380(253-266)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585088.3589380
Lee YKim TKim SYun YKim J(2023)DAPIE: Interactive Step-by-Step Explanatory Dialogues to Answer Children’s Why and How QuestionsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581369(1-22)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581369
Mansi GKim SRoberts J(2022)Ready, Set, Art: Technology Needs and Tools for Remote K-2 Art EducationProceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3501712.3529731(150-184)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3501712.3529731
Zhang CYao CWu JLin WLiu LYan GYing F(2022)StoryDrawerProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3501914(1-15)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3501914
Monteiro Ide Lima Brilhante Mdos Santos Jde Mattos Brito Oliveira Fde Oliveira AMonteiro Ida Hora Rodrigues Kde Gois Ribeiro Darin TFreire AMota M(2021)Mobile game-based learning with Opi appProceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3472301.3484349(1-11)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3472301.3484349

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents