Can Digital Games Help Seniors Improve their Quality of Life?

Louise Sauvé

, Lise Renaud

David Kaufman

and Emmanuel Duplàa

Département Éducation, Télé-université / SAVIE, 455 Rue du Parvis, GIK9H6, Québec, (Qc), Canada

Faculté de communication, UQAM, C.P. 8888, succ. Centre-ville, H3C3P8, Montréal, (Qc), Canada

Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Dr, V5A1S6, Burnaby, (BC), Canada

Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier St, K1N6N5, Ottawa, (ON), Canada

Keywords: Online Games, Seniors, Benefits, Quality of Life.

Abstract: A developmental research study aimed to design, publicize and evaluate an online educational game to

improve the quality of life for seniors 55 years and older. The game Live Well, Live Healthy!

(cvje2.savie.ca) is a Bingo game in which the learning content in the study was integrated into the

mechanism of the game. A "pre-test/post-test" single group methodology measured the impact of the game

in three dimensions of quality of life: psychological, physical and social. A total of 56 seniors played for a

week in the multiplayer mode (real-time interaction with at least two other participants). The results indicate

that the educational game improved the perception of seniors in a majority of the variables concerning the

three dimensions: physical (fatigue, sleep, eating habits); social well-being (building ties, social

connectedness, friendships) and psychological well-being (depression, difficulty doing activities, mood and

feeling of being loved). Some variables (sadness, isolation, proximity to family and physical habits)

generated a weak perception of positive benefits for these seniors.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The aging population represents a serious challenge

for healthcare systems and social insurance in the

21st century. These aging seniors are facing the

decline of their physical and cognitive abilities, loss

of long-term companions and social support,

changes in their familial or professional

environment, changing lifestyles and the increased

likelihood of developing chronic and disabling

diseases. But what are we doing to improve the

quality of life for seniors? Can online educational

games help them age better?

1.2 Purpose of the Study

Our study aims to measure the benefits of an online

educational game designed for seniors concerning

their quality of life.

1.3 Research Questions

• What is the impact of the educational game on the

perception of the seniors’ physical condition?

• What is the impact of the educational game on the

perception of the seniors’ psychological state?

• What is the impact of the educational game on the

perception of the seniors’ social environment?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

An investigation by CEFRIO in Quebec indicated

that over a third of seniors aged 55 and over using

the internet to play digital games either alone or in

groups (Beaudoin et al., 2011). Given this interest,

we wondered whether the use of online educational

games for improving the quality of life of seniors

could be beneficial.

Quality of life is a global concept describing the

daily life of people, taking into account the

emotional and social functions as well as purely

physical conditions. Even though there does not

seem to be a consensual definition (Kuyken and

WHOQOL Group, 1995), the most widely used

definition comes from the World Health

Organization - WHO (1993). Quality of Life is

defined as ‘‘…individuals' perception of their

Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D. and Duplàa, E.

Can Digital Games Help Seniors Improve their Quality of Life?.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 1, pages 94-102

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

position in life in the context of the culture and the

value systems in which they live and in relation to

their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It

is a broad ranging concept affected in a complex

way by the person’s physical health, psychological

state, level of independence, social relationships,

personal beliefs and their relationship to salient

features of their environment.’’(WH0, 1997, p. 1).

This concept takes into account four dimensions:

physical (autonomy and physical abilities),

psychological (isolation, depression, emotion),

relational (family, social, professional), symptomatic

(impact of a disease and its treatment). Surveys

(Bowling and Dieppe, 2005; Chen et al., 2013)

reveal that a majority of seniors consider

psychological well-being, involvement in social

activities and physical health as conditions for

successfully aging. Finally, Turcotte and

Schellenberg (2006, p. 51) consider that "active

participation in society can also be compromised if a

person has difficulty hearing, seeing, walking,

climbing stairs, bending, learning or doing similar

activities. All these difficulties, if cumulative, can

greatly impair the quality of life of a person of any

age."

Digital games are becoming increasingly popular

with seniors (Diaz-Orueta et al., 2012; Nacke et al.,

2009). According to the World Health Organization

- WHO (2001), digital games can influence both the

health conditions of seniors (taking into

consideration health in a perspective that is both

broad and biopsychosocial) and their ability to

perform activities in their current environment.

What does the literature say concerning the

impact of digital games on the quality of life of

seniors as it pertains to the physical, psychological

and social aspects? Some studies on the impacts of

digital games on an active lifestyle (i.e., the ability

to maintain physical and functional independence)

have shown beneficial effects on the quality of life

of seniors (Figueira et al., 2008; Freitas et al., 2007;

Pernambuco et al. 2012). Other studies have

examined the contribution of games using the

Nintendo Wii game console on the performance of

physical and functional tasks. Studies from

Jorgensens et al. (2013), Maillot et al. (2012) and

Singh et al. (2013) conclude that improvements were

apparent; however, those of Bieryla and Dold (2013)

and Daniel (2012) do not find any improvements.

Social interaction and social support are

constantly identified as key aspects of quality of life

for seniors (Adams et al., 2011; Heylin, 2010;

Reichstadt et al., 2010; Theurer and Wister, 2010).

Seniors are already active users of interactive

technologies and they would be able to use digital

games and be able to easily learn (Pew Internet and

American Life Project, 2011). Studies are showing

increasingly that digital games are a means of social

interaction that may improve the quality of life of

seniors (De Schutter and Abeele 2010; De Schutter,

2011; Ijsselsteijn et al., 2007; Khoo and Cheok

2006; Khoo et al., 2009; Mahmud et al., 2008;

Stebbins 2007; Stowe and Cooney, 2015; Theng et

al., 2012;). Whitcomb (1990) found that games

develop a sense of well-being and social

relationships among seniors while providing an

enjoyable way to spend time. Astell (2013)

suggested that digital games and interactive

technologies (Skype, Facebook, etc.) offer social

connections, especially for elderly people suffering

from dementia.

Regarding physiological aspects, Allaire et al.

(2013) found a significant difference between

gaming (moderate and occasional) and non-gaming

seniors, concerning socio-affective dimensions such

as mood and depression. In addition, Wollersheim et

al. (2010) reported that digital games breakdown

isolation as well as decrease feelings of loneliness.

Despite these findings, few studies have

addressed the psychological aspects of quality of

life.

It is difficult to draw conclusions from current

empirical studies because there is little overlap in

these studies due to several factors:

• the variation in the demographic data of the

participants; for example, the number (1-1000

respondents), age (45 to 87), educational level

(secondary to university);

• the ratio of men vs. women (more women than

men participate in most studies);

• the diversity of research methodologies;

• the use of various measuring instruments (few

studies use the same instruments);

• the choice of digital games, which are not always

developed for seniors.

What happens if we experiment on an

educational game with learning content dealing with

nutrition and prevention, in addition to the three

quality of life dimensions: physical (physical

activity benefits in the development of autonomy

and physical abilities), psychological (actions to take

to reduce anxiety, depression, emotions) and

relational (the contribution of the social environment

- family, social, professional - for the well-being of

seniors). Can such a game change the perceptions of

seniors towards the benefits that educational games

can bring by educating them about the actions they

can take to improve their quality of life?

Can Digital Games Help Seniors Improve their Quality of Life?

3 GAME DESCRIPTION

According to a survey of 932 Canadian seniors

(Kaufman et al., 2014), the Bingo game was found

to be the most frequently one mentioned by

respondents. Figure 1 represents the Live Well, Live

Healthy! game interface which is divided into three

parts: a) the Bingo card, rules and tutorial; b)

information on the game’s progress: the type of

game, randomly drawn ball, and the Bingo button

for ending the game; and c) information related to

the players’ actions: players' names and scores, as

well as the microphone and chat control buttons.

Figure 1: Live Well, Live Healthy!

The Live Well, Live Healthy! game was

developed using a generic shell for educational

games (http://cvje2concepteur.savie.ca). The game’s

educational objectives are the following: to increase

knowledge about nutrition and physical activities, to

decrease risk situations (or to improve prevention

situations) and to identify the importance of social

interactions with friends and family members.

The Live Well, Live Healthy! game offers a

mechanism to display a question every time the

number of a randomly drawn ball is on one or more

of the players’ cards. If the player answers the

question correctly, a token appears in the box and

the player earns points (20 points for an easy

question, 30 points for an average question and 50

points for a difficult question). If the player does not

answer the question correctly, the token will not

appear in the box and the player loses half the points

allocated to the question. The 92 questions included

in the game are distributed as follows: physical state

(31 questions about nutrition, 24 about physical

activities), psychological aspect (18 questions) and

the social environment (19 questions).

The Live Well, Live Healthy! game provides

feedback to support the learning of the preset

content. Immediate feedback, related to each

learning task, allows the players to identify

successful activities and those they have failed.

Figure 2: Question Card.

The game incorporates mechanisms (Figure 2)

that: (1) highlight the results of each learning

activity (success or failure) through visual or audible

feedback (A) such as a smiling face or a sad one and

positive or negative tone (i.e a signal that indicates

whether the action in the game has been made

correctly or not by the player) and (2) the correct

and incorrect answers through textual, visual (B) or

audible (C) feedback on the content of the learning

activity or provide additional information to sustain

interest in the case of positive responses; and (3)

allow players to see what they have learned by

providing an overview of the results of the game’s

learning activities, together with teaching materials

to review subject matter that has not been learned.

For more details about this digital game and a

good preview, please read Sauvé et al. (2014). This

game (http://cvje2.savie.ca) will promote active

living and healthy eating habits among seniors as

well as giving them opportunities to interact with

others by illustrating these themes with good quality

images and animations.

4 METHODOLOGY

Opting for a single group pre- and post-test protocol,

our study leads us to measure the physical,

psychological and social dimensions of quality of

life. Remember that quality of life is a subjective

concept and the apprehension of the construct itself

is complex. The definition of quality of life being

adopted in this study specifies the items that the

study will retain to measure the impact of the game.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Table 1: Quality of Life Dimensions.

Quality of Life

Dimensions

Items Measured

Physical State

Sleep

Tiredness

Eating habits

Physical activity habits

Psychological

Aspect

Depression

Isolation

Feeling loved

Mood

Sadness

Ease in doing activities

Social

Environment

Strengthening ties

Social connectedness

Friendship

Interactions with family

Interactions with friends

These items (Table 1) were subjected to Likert

scale to obtain the construct of the quality of life. To

facilitate data collection, we opted for a self-

administered questionnaire. It is therefore preferable

to use scales having a limited number of questions to

minimize the time it takes to fill out the

questionnaire.

4.1 Handing out the Pre/Post

Questionnaires

A questionnaire of 15 items was used for data

collection. The questions were formed as a Likert

scale with five levels (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree,

3 = neutral, 2 = disagree and 1 = strongly disagree).

The questions were designed to determine the

perceptions of the participants towards the benefits

of playing online concerning physical, social and

psychological well-being. The reliability of the

instrument was determined to use the index of

internal consistency from Cronbach’s alpha (α =

0.87). The validity has been established by

calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient

between items belonging to the same dimension.

The four items in the "Physical state" dimension

showed significant correlations among them.

Similarly, the five items comprising the "Social

environment" dimension presented significant

correlations among all items. Finally, significant

correlations between the six items belonging to the

"Psychological aspect" dimension amounted to 66%.

The pretest was completed prior to the

participation of seniors in the Live Well, Live

Healthy! game. Seniors were invited to play at least

four games over a period of one month. Following

their participation, they had to complete the post-

test.

4.2 Sample

It is very difficult to find objective definitions of the

terms "senior" or "elderly". “The new definitions

proposed by experts are not getting consensual

approval yet" (Turcotte and Schellenberg, 2006,

p. 8). As part of our study, we selected two criteria:

minimum age of 55 and that of being retired in

establishing our sample of seniors.

Turcotte and Schellenberg (2006) identify two

types of seniors: those who are currently 65, the

threshold that delineates the elderly according to

Statistics Canada and those who are considered the

next generation of seniors, adults aged between 55

and 64. Beaudoin et al., (2011) also chose the age of

55 and over to designate seniors from generation A.

Given this trend, we chose to form two age groups:

55 to 64 and 64 years and older.

On the retirement aspect, Turcotte and

Schellenberg (2006) found that people aged 56 and

over who are retired have more time to devote to

their home computer. In a recent study in Australia

realized by Brand et al. (2014), nearly one player in

five is likely to be aged 51 and over. The reasons

and motivations why players choose to play vary by

age group, suggesting that the stages of life play an

important role in the act of playing games.

Following what these authors suggested, retired

people were more available and interested in

participating in the experiment.

The recruitment of our sample of seniors of 55

and over was carried out through elderly

associations and retirement homes. The experiments

were done on site during social activities organized

by the associations or in the residences’ living room

in which computer equipment is made available to

the participants. This project was approved by the

ethics committee at each of the authors’ universities.

All participants signed a consent form and were able

at any time to interrupt their participation without

any prejudice. A list of available human resources in

their region was provided to them if needed.

4.3 Analyses

The analysis comprised the calculation of

frequencies and percentages for each question. The

Fisher’s exact test was used to determine the

significance of the differences between the

responses of the pretest and post-test. Since the

variables were not normally distributed, the use of

Can Digital Games Help Seniors Improve their Quality of Life?

parametric tests such as the paired samples t-test was

discarded.

5 RESULTS

Of the 67 participants of the study, 56 (83%)

completed the pre- and post-test questionnaires in

their entirety, providing all the required information.

Table 2 shows the analysis of the 56 respondents.

Table 2: Sample characteristics (sex, age group and level

of online gaming skills (n = 56).

Age

Group

Level of

Online

Gaming

Skills

Men Women TOTAL

Between

55 and

Beginner 4 10 14

Intermediary 2 4 6

Subtotal 6 14 20

65 and

over

Beginner 8 18 26

Intermediary 1 9 10

Subtotal 9 27 36

TOTAL 15 41 56

The sample included 41 women and 15 men. 20

participants (36%) are aged 64 or under and 36

subjects (64%) are 65 or older. 40 players have

stated they are "beginners" in relation to their level

of online gaming skills, while 16 participants were

considered "intermediate" (Initially we presented

three skill levels. Two respondents were "experts".

Given the low numbers, we decided to integrate

them with the intermediate players).Note that the

initial trial period was one month and that seniors

were

the participants have little invited to play at

least one game per week for a minimum of four

games with two other participants. However, the

technological constraints of the locations for the

experiment (little or no computer equipment or

connectivity) reduced the experimental period for

one week. All seniors played at least one game, 79%

of them played two games and 21% of seniors

played four games.

In the following subsections we present the

perceptions of participants (n = 56) regarding the

effects of playing online on their quality of life.

These effects are grouped according to the

previously described dimensions: physical state,

psychological aspects and social environment. Table

3 shows the results related to these three dimensions.

Table 3: Results in connection with the three dimensions

regarding the quality of life (n = 56).

Items Physical State

Pre Post

Fatigue

2.95 3.57 0.069

Sleep

3.44 3.80 0.031

Eating Habits

4.05 4.20 0.083

Physical Activity

Habits

2.18 2.53

0.462

Items Social Environment

Pre Post

Strengthening

Ties

2.90 3.79

0.001

Social

Connectedness

3.32 3.44

0.056

Friendship

3.03 3.79

0.003

Interactions with

Family

3.72 3.95 0.621

Interactions with

Friends

3.69 4.13

0.064

Items Psychological Aspects

Pre Post

Depression

3.76 4.21

0.022

Ease of Doing

Activities

3.55 4.00

0.156

Mood

3.84 4.33

0.011

Isolation

3.79 4.15

0.158

Sadness

3.86 4.23

0.167

5.1 Perceptions about the Effects of

Playing Online on Physical

Well-being

Regarding the effects of the game on the players’

physical state, the results show an increase in the

means of the four items on this dimension, resulting

in an improvement in participants' perceptions

towards physical well-being (Table 3).

Fatigue - The average of the pre-test (2.95)

showed a more neutral perception of the effects that

playing online has on fatigue while the post-test

average increased by 0.62 to place it in the

favourable range (strongly agree or agree). The

percentage of participants who thought that playing

online does not tire them after a few hours of

playing went from 43% in the pretest to 63% in the

post-test. These differences are significant (Fisher's

exact test, p = 0.069).

Sleep - The general assessment of the impact of

online games on sleep also improved. Generally,

participants believe that online play does not affect

their sleep. Although the pretest average (3.44)

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

showed an already favourable position on this, it

strengthened and increased by 0.36 in the post-test.

This difference is significant (Fisher's exact test, p =

0.031).

Eating Habits - Both before and after playing

online, the widespread opinion was that this activity

does not encourage participants to skip meals. This

perception was strengthened in participants (average

rose from 4.05 to 4.20). The proportion of participants

who were of the opinion that online gaming had no

effect on feeding habits has gone from 84% in the

pretest to 93% in the post-test. These differences are

significant (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.083).

Physical Activity Habits - The perception of a

positive effect from the game on physical activity

was rather low. Before playing, only 12% of

participants were of the opinion that online gaming

encourages them to be more active. Although this

proportion increased to 27% in the post-test, the

average remains in the negative range (2.18 in the

pre-test and 2.53 in the post-test). The result of

Fisher's exact test shows that these differences are

not significant (p = 0.462).

5.2 Perceptions about the Effects of

Playing Online on Social

Well-being

In regard to the effects of gaming on the social

environment of the participants, the responses show

an improvement in perception in this regard. Indeed,

there was an increase in the averages of the five

items included in this dimension (Table 3).

Strengthening Ties - With 36% in the pre-test to

75% in the post-test, the rate of participants who

agreed with the idea that the game allows them to

strengthen their ties increased significantly (p =

0.001). The average had an increase of 0.89. In other

words, the perception of the game as a means of

strengthening social ties has changed favourably.

Perception of Social Connectedness - Online

gaming promotes a social connectedness with others.

The pretest average (3.32) and post-test (3.44)

support this assertion. The proportion of participants

in agreement was 52% before playing and 66%

thereafter. These differences are significant (Fisher's

exact test, p = 0.056).

Friendship - In connection with the two

preceding items, the rate of participants who were of

the opinion that online play allows them to have

friends has increased significantly (from 40% in the

pretest to 73% in the post-test). The average

increased by 0.76 and answers converged more

around the average. These differences are significant

(Fisher's exact test, p = 0.003).

Interactions with Family - The perception towards

interactions with family remains in the positive range.

The average pretest was 3.72 and had an increase of

0.23. However, the Fisher exact test does not

conclude that these differences are significant (p =

0.621). If NSP is considered (42 in the pretest and 29

in the post-test), the significance improves, but

remains slightly nonsignificant (p = 0.139> 0.100).

Interactions with Friends - In the same vein, the

results suggest that there has been a consolidation of

the perception of interactions with friends. In the

pretest, 74% of participants found this perception

favourable. The percentage increased to 88% in the

post-test. These differences are significant (Fisher's

exact test, p = 0.064).

5.3 Perceptions about the Effects of

Playing Online on Psychological

Well-being

Regarding the effects of the game on psychological

well-being, although three of the six items that make

up this dimension do not show significant

differences, we see significant increases in the

averages as shown in Table 2.

Depression - According to participants'

responses before they used the game, 74% of

participants indicated they did not feel depressed in

the current week. In contrast, 17% said they felt

depressed. These proportions changed significantly

after using the game. The percentage of participants

who expressed not being depressed increased to 88%

while only one participant responded unfavourably.

These differences are significant (Fisher's exact test,

p = 0.022).

Ease of Doing Activities – The day after the

experiment, participants did not think that their daily

activities required an effort, and this was found both

in the pre-test (average of 3.55) and in the post-test

(4.00). Although there was an increase of 0.45 in the

average, the Fisher exact test does not confirm

significant differences (p = 0.15683). Yet it should

be noted that the NSP increased from 7 in the pretest

to 15 in the post-test, which had an impact on the

significance of the differences (If NSP is included,

the Fisher exact test p = 0.069 is less than 0.100,

then the differences may be considered significant).

Mood - The responses suggest that the game had

a positive effect on the moods of participants. The

rate of participants who expressed feeling in a good

mood had a significant increase (0.012). It rose from

77% to 88%. These differences are significant

(Fisher's exact test, p = 0.012).

Can Digital Games Help Seniors Improve their Quality of Life?

Isolation - The percentage of participants who

indicated they do not feel alone rose from 74% in

the pretest to 90% in the post-test. In the same vein,

the average was 3.79 and increased to 4.15.

Nevertheless, these differences cannot be considered

significant (p = 0.158> 0.100).

Sadness - Similar to the previous item, the

percentage of participants who said they did not feel

sadness has gone from 81% in the pretest to 88% in

the post-test. Similarly, the average was 3.86 and

went up to 4.23 for an increase 0.37. However, the

Fisher exact test showed no significant difference (p

= 0.167.).

Feeling Loved - Participants in the study felt

loved. The answers show that this perception was

positive both before and after the use of the game.

This is confirmed by the averages of the pretest

(4.24) and the post-test (4.37) and by the

participant’s rate of agreement (95% in the pretest

and 90% in the post-test). These differences are

significant (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.016).

6 DISCUSSION

We recall that the content of the Live Well, Live

Healthy! game addresses the three dimensions of the

quality of life in the form of closed questions: the

physical state, the psychological aspect and the

social environment.

Overall, the results showed significant

differences in a majority of the variables that were

analyzed. Playing the Live Well, Live Healthy!

game online resulted in the participants improved

perception of their quality of life concerning their

psychological, physical and social states. So our

hypothesis that digital games improve seniors'

quality of life was confirmed through the physical,

social and psychological aspects. Digital game

development aimed at seniors is promising.

However, certain items seem questionable. What

about the non-significant variables?

The respondents reported that playing online

gave them no incentive to be more active. It is true

that most online games, individual or in group, are

not combined with physical devices such as

Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Kinect Xbox 360 from

which according to Daniel (2012) and Singh et al.

(2013), promote improvement in physical

conditioning. The interactions in the Live Well, Live

Healthy! game are done using a touch-screen or

mouse. The content of the game covers how to adopt

good physical habits. It seems that this way of

educating seniors, that is, by offering models of

good physical habits without putting them into

action from within the game, maintains their

perceptions that online games do not encourage

them to be more active.

As for their psychological state, playing online

for a limited period does not seem to change the

perception of seniors who feel isolated and sad. It is

interesting to note that participants who reported

feeling in a better mood after playing an educational

game, which was linked to the enjoyment in playing

the game according to Rosenberg et al. (2010),

should have normally felt less sad as well but this

was not the case. We would hypothesize that the

source of their sadness is more due to their social

isolation caused by lack of contact with friends

and/or family (Wollersheim et al., 2010) and that

their gameplay did not change this situation during

the period of our intervention.

Despite the interaction of respondents with

others (who were not family members) during the

game, it seems that those who had this perception

before the game did not change as a result of their

participation in the Live Well, Live Healthy! game.

These results lead us to question the time allowed to

seniors for playing. Given the technological

constraints that the participants had little or no

computer equipment nor sufficient connectivity at

their disposal particularly in their seniors residences,

we limited the playing time to one week in order to

move the equipment to the different locations. This

may explain the results that were obtained? Most

studies done with seniors that have obtained positive

results on the cognitive, social, psychological or

physical level (Sauvé et al., 2015) experimented on

the games for a period of at least three weeks. Only

the study done by Seçer and Satyen (2014) obtained

no significant difference when they experimented on

their game over a period of two to three weeks.

In terms of the social environment, playing

online maintained their perception towards the

proximity of the family but nothing more. However,

during the testing of the game, few seniors played

with their families; they mostly experimented with

friends and people around them at the residence. Can

the context of the experiment explain the

participants’ unchanging perception of this aspect?

This is a question for further research.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study indicate that educational

games among seniors, lead to an improved

perception of their quality of life encompassing the

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

100

following aspects: physical state (fatigue, sleep,

eating habits); social well-being (strengthening ties,

social connectedness, friendship and interaction with

friends) and psychological well-being (depression,

ease of doing activities, mood and feeling loved). As

for sadness, isolation, interactions with family and

physical habits, the perception of a positive effect

remains weak among seniors.

While showing very positive results regarding

the three dimensions of the study, several limitations

have nuanced our findings: the small number of

respondents (n = 56), the experimental time (one

week), the limited number of games in which

respondents participated (between one and four

games). Similarly, the use of a board game designed

with learning objectives and offered online limits the

generalizability of our results for the same type of

games.

Further studies should be made to overcome

these limitations and consider the impact of online

educational games on seniors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the research assistants

involved with this study: Samuel Venière for

recruitment and data collection in the field, Aurélie

Faticati for the literature review and Gustavo Adolfo

Angulo Mendoza for the statistical analysis of the

data of the study.

We also thank the SSHRC for their financial

support to conduct this study.

REFERENCES

Adams, K. B., Liebrandt, S., Moon, H., 2011. A critical

review of the literature on social and leisure activity

and well-being in later life. Ageing & Society, 31,

pp. 683-712.

Allaire, J. C., McLaughlin, A. C., Trujillo, A., Whitlock,

L. A., Laporte, L., Gandy, M., 2013. Successful aging

through digital games: Socioemotional differences

between older adult gamers and Non-gamers.

Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), pp. 1302-1306.

Beaudoin, J., Kooli, N., Thomas, F., Arlabosse, B.,

Couture, A., Danjou, R., 2011. Génération @ :

Portrait de l’utilisation d’internet et de l’ordinateur

par les aînés internautes du Québec, Rapport

d’enquête. Québec: CEFRIO.

Astell, A.J., 2013. Technology and fun for a happy old

age. In A. Sixsmith and G. Gutman (eds.),

Technologies for Active Aging (pp. 169-187). New

York: Springer..

Bieryla, K. A., Dold, N. M., 2013. Feasibility of Wii Fit

training to improve clinical measures of balance in

older adults. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 8,

pp. 775–781. doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S46164.

Bowling, A., Dieppe, P., 2005. What is successful ageing

and who should define it? British Medical Journal,

331, pp. 1548-1551.

Brand, J. E., Lorentz, P., Mathew, T., 2014. da14 (Digital

Australia). National Research. Australia: Bond

University and Entertainment Association.

Chen, St.C., Huang, Y.G.L., Chiang, I.T., 2012. Using

somatosensory video games to promote quality of life

for the elderly with disabilities. The Ieee Fourth

International Conference On. The Digital Game And

Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (Digitel) (pp. 258-

262). Takamatsu : Ieee, 27-30 March.

Daniel, K., 2012. Wii-Hab for Pre-Frail Older Adults.

Rehabilitation Nursing, 37(4), pp. 195-201.

De Schutter, R., Vanden Abeele V., 2010. Designing

meaningful within the psycho-social context of older

adults. In V. V. Abeele, B. Zaman, M. Obrist, W.

IJsselsteijn (eds.), Fun and Games 2010: Proceedings

of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and

Games (pp. 84-93). New York, NY: ACM.

De Schutter, B., 2011. Never too old to play: the appeal of

digital games to an older audience. Games and

Culture, 6(2), pp. 155-170.

Diaz-Orueta, U., Facal, D., Herman Nap, H., Ranga, M.-

M., 2012. What Is the Key for Older People to Show

Interest in Playing Digital Learning Games? Initial

Qualitative Findings from the LEAGE Project on a

Multicultural European Sample. Games for Health,

1(2), pp. 115-123.

Figueira, H., Figueira, J., Mello, D., Dantas, E., 2008.

Quality of life throughout aging. Acta Medica

Lituanica, 15, pp. 169-172.

Freitas, C.M., Santiago, M.S., Viana, A.T., Leão, A.C.,

Freyre, C., 2007. Motivational aspects that influence

the elderly to enroll on and continue participating in

physical exercise programs. Revista Brasileira de

Cine-antropometria & Desempenho Humano, 9,

pp. 92-100.

Heylin, L., 2010. The older, the lonelier? Risk factors for

social loneliness in old age. Ageing & Society, 30,

pp. 1177-1196.

Ijsselsteijn, W., Nap, H. H., de Kort, Y., Poels, K., 2007.

Digital game design for elderly users. In B. Kapralos,

M. Katchabaw, J. Rajnovich (eds.), Proceedings of the

2007 Conference on Future Play (pp. 17-22). New

York, NY: ACM.

Jorgensen, M. G., Laessoe, U., Hendriksen, C., Nielson,

O. B. F., Aagaard, P., 2013. Efficacy of Nintendo Wii

Training on Mechanical Leg Muscle Function and

Postural Balance in Community-Dwelling Older

Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Journals

of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and

Medical Sciences, 68(7), pp. 845–852. Doi: 10.1093/

gerona/gls222.

Kaufman D, Sauvé L, Renaud L, Duplàa E., 2014.

Enquête auprès des aînés canadiens sur les bénéfiques

Can Digital Games Help Seniors Improve their Quality of Life?

101

que les jeux numériques ou non leur apportent

[Survey of Canadian seniors to determine the benefits

derived from digital games]. Research report, Québec,

TÉLUQ, UQAM, Simon Fraser University, University

of Ottawa.

Kuyken, W., WHOQOL Group, 1995. The World Health

Organization Quality of Life Assessment

(WHOQOL): Position Paper from the World Health

Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10),

pp. 1403-1409.

Khoo, E., Cheok, A., 2006. Age invaders:

intergenerational mixed reality family game. The

International Journal of Virtual Reality, 5(2), pp. 45-

50.

Khoo, E. T., Merritt, T., Cheok, A. D., 2009. Designing

physical and social intergenerational family

entertainment. Interacting with Computers, 21, pp. 76-

87.

Mahmud, A.A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., Martens, J.-B.,

2008. Designing and evaluating the tabletop game

experience for senior citizens. In Proceedings of the

5th Nordic conference on Human-computer

interaction building bridges - NordiCHI ’08 (pp. 403-

406). New York, USA: ACM Press.

Maillot, P., Perrot, A., Hartley, A., 2012. Effects of

Interactive Physical-Activity Video-Game Training on

Physical and Cognitive Function in Older Adults.

Psychology & Aging, 27(3), pp. 589-600.

Nacke, L.E., Nacke, A., Lindley, C.A., 2009. Brain

training for silver gamers: Effects of age and game

form on effectiveness, efficiency, self-assessment and

gameplay experience. CyberPsychology & Behavior,

12(5), pp. 493–499. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0013.

Pernambuco, C.S., Rodrigues, B.M., Bezerra J.C.P.,

Carrielo, A., Dias de Oliveira Fernandes, A., Gomes

de Souza Vale, R., Martin Dantas, E. H., 2012. Quality

of life, elderly and physical activity, Health, 4(2),

pp. 88-93.

Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2011.

Demographics of Internet users. Retrieved on March

2012 from http://pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-

Data/Whos-Online.aspx.

Reichstadt, J., Sengupta, G., Depp, C., Palinkas, L.A.,

Jeste, D.V., 2010. Older adults’ perspectives on

successful aging: Qualitative interviews. American

Journal for Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(7), pp. 567-575.

Rosenberg, D., Depp, C.A., Vahia, I.V., Reichstadt, J.,

Palmer, B. W., Kerr, J., Norman, G., Jeste, D.V.,

2010. Exergames for subsyndromal depression in

older adults: A pilot study of a novel intervention.

American Journal for Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(3),

pp. 221-226.

Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., Duplàa, E., 2014.

Validation of the educational game for seniors: “Live

Well, Live Healthy!”. Procedia Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 176(2015) (pp. 674-682). International

Educational Technology Conference, IETC 2014, 3-5

September 2014, Chicago, IL, USA, Elsevier Ltd, doi:

10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.526.

Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Veniere, S., Mendozo, G.A., 2015.

Rapport d’expérimentation du jeu Vivons bien, vivons

sainement! Québec: Télé-université et UQAM.

Seçer, I., Satyen, L., 2014. Video Game Training and

Reaction Time Skills among Older Adults. Activities,

Adaptation & Aging, 38(3), pp. 220–236.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2014.935908.

Singh, D.K.A., Rajaratnam, B.S., Palaniswamy, V.,

Raman, V.P., Bong, P.S., Pearson, H., 2013. Effects of

balance-focused interactive games compared to

therapeutic balance classes for older women.

Climacteric, 16(1), pp. 141-146.

Stebbins, R., 2007. Serious Leisure: A perspective for our

time. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stowe, J.D., Cooney, T.M., 2015. Examining Rowe and

Kahn’s Concept of Successful Aging: Importance of

Taking a Life Course Perspective. The Gerontologist,

55(1), pp. 43–50. http://doi.org/10.1093/geront/

gnu055.

Theng, Y.-L., Chua, P.H., Pham, T.P., 2012. Wii as

entertainment and socialisation aids for mental and

social health of the elderly. Paper at Proceedings of

the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts

on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended

Abstracts. DOI: 10.1145/2212776.2212840.

Theurer, K., Wister, A., 2010. Altruistic behaviour and

social capital as predictors of well-being among older

Canadians. Ageing & Society, 30, pp. 157-181.

Turcotte, M., Schellenberg, G., 2006. Un portrait des

aînés au Canada. Canada: Statistiques Canada, p. 321.

Whitcomb, G.R., 1990. Computer games for the elderly.

In R. S. Rosenberg (ed.), ACM SIGGAS Computers

and Society (pp. 112-115). New York, NY: ACM.

Wollersheim, D., Merkes, M., Shields, N., Liamputtong,

P., Wallis, L., Reynolds, F., Koh, L., 2010. Physical

and psychosocial effects of wii video game use among

older women. International Journal of Emerging

Technologies & Society, 8(2), pp. 85-98.

World Health Organization, 1993. Study protocol for the

World Health Organization project to develop a

quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL).

Quality of Life Research, 2, pp. 153-159.

World Health Organization, 1997. WHOQOL. Measuring

Quality of Life. WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4.

Retrieved on June 2000 from http://www.who.int

/mental_ health/media/68.pdf.

World Health Organization, 2001. International

Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

(ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

102