Also worth questioning whether the test was sufficiently far removed from the game itself that improved scores mean anything. Unfortunately the article is paywalled, but here's a quote from the abstract:
> Students who played Alien Game at a high level of challenge (i.e., reaching a high level in the game) developed significantly better performance on cognitive shifting tests compared to controls when they played for 2 h (Experiment 1, d = 1.44), but not when they played for 1 h (Experiment 2).
Probably it was a card sorting test. This sounds to me like "people who practiced card sorting got better at card sorting."
I have access to the article [1] through my university, here is the description of the procedure:
The study took place in the students' classroom, once a week over an 8 week period. [...] On the first week, demographic questionnaires and the computerized DCCS and Flanker tasks were administered. The Alien Game was then introduced to the students [..] They then played through the first, tutorial level to learn the basics of the game. For the next 6 weeks, students were asked to sign in and play for 20 min per week. Each week, the next two levels of the game were unlocked. [...] On the final week, the DCCS and Flanker tasks were administered again, and students were given a posttest questionnaire asking about their experiences with the game.
So if I understand correctly, that was:
- 1st week: just the questionnaire and test, plus demo
- weeks 2 to 7: play the game 20 minutes
- week 8: test again
So it seems the performance improvement was measured one week after the last game session.
> Students who played Alien Game at a high level of challenge (i.e., reaching a high level in the game) developed significantly better performance on cognitive shifting tests compared to controls when they played for 2 h (Experiment 1, d = 1.44), but not when they played for 1 h (Experiment 2).
Probably it was a card sorting test. This sounds to me like "people who practiced card sorting got better at card sorting."