Online data collection from video game players: Methodological issues

Cyberpsychology and Behavior

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 511-518

  Wood, Richard T A ^a   Griffiths, Mark D ^a   Eatough, Virginia ^a  

^a NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL STUDY; GAME; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; VALIDATION PROCESS; VIDEOGAME; VIDEORECORDING;

DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERVIEW, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PATIENT SELECTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VIDEO GAMES;

EID: 8344226056     PISSN: 10949313     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.511     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Griffiths, M.D. (2000). Does Internet and computer "addiction" exist? Some case study evidence. CyberPsychology & Behavior 3:211-218.
2. Griffiths, M.D., & Davies, M.N.O. (2002). Excessive online gaming: implications for education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18:379-381.
3. Griffiths, M.D., Davies, M.N.O., & Chappell, D. (2003). Breaking the stereotype: the case of online gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior 6:81-91.
4. Chappell, D., Eatough, V., Griffiths, M., et al. (2004). EverQuest. It's just a game right? An interpretative phenomenological analysis [Unpublished manuscript]. Nottingham, UK: Nottingham Trent University.
5. Wood, R.T.A., Griffiths, M.D., Chappell, D., et al. (2004). The structural characteristics of video games: a psycho-structural analysis. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7:1-10.
6. Newell, R. (1993). Questionnaires. In: Gilbert, N. (ed.), Researching social life. London: Sage, pp. 96-97.
7. Griffiths, M.D. (2002). The educational benefits of video games. Education and Health 3:47-51.
8. Wright, T., Boria, E., & Breidenbach, P. (2002) Creative player actions in FPS online video games: playing counter-strike. Game Studies [On-line]. Available: www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/.
9. Howard, G.S. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self-reports? Journal of Organizational Behavior 15:399-404.
10. Campbell, K. A., Rohlman, D. S., Storzbach, D., et al. (1999). Test-retest reliability of psychological and neurobehavioral tests self-administered by computer. Assessment 6:21-32.
11. DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Computerized administration of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Assessment 3:365-374.
12. Neuman, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests: when are they equivalent? Applied Psychological Measurement 22:71-83.
13. Barak, A., & English, N. (2002) Prospects and limitations of psychological testing on the Internet. Journal of Technology in Human Services 19:65-89.
14. Suler, J. (1996). One of us: participant observation research at the Palace [On-line]. Available: www. rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/partobs.html.
15. Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002). The e-interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line]. Available: www.qualitative-research.net/ fqs/fqs-eng.htm.
16. Holge-Hazelton, B. (2002). The Internet: a new field for qualitative inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line]. Available: www.qualitative-research. net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm.
17. Bruckman, A.S. (1993). Gender swapping on the internet. Presented at the Internet Society (INET '93), San Fransisco.
18. O'Connell, R. (2001). Be somebody else but be yourself at all times: degrees of identity deception in chatrooms [On-line]. Available: www.once.uclan.ac.uk/ print/deception_print.htm.