Summary

This project was conducted as a registered report, a process by which a study’s protocol is sent for peer review and accepted for publication (in principle) before data collection begins.

Context

There is increasing interest in the use of ‘brain training’ programmes to improve a variety of mental health and wellbeing outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms or eating choices). However, the effectiveness of these programmes is limited by low adherence rates. People frequently rate them as boring, leading researchers to suggest adding game elements may solve this problem. However, the effects of each element haven’t been systematically investigated.

We randomly allocated 252 participants interested in reducing their consumption of unhealthy foods to one of three groups: a non-gamified control cognitive training, a cognitive training with added feedback game elements (points) and a cognitive training with added social elements (teams and leaderboards). Participants were instructed to complete one training session a day, delivered online using the experimental platform Gorilla.sc for two weeks. We found no evidence that gamification significantly improved engagement with the training programme.

This project was conducted as a registered report, with the study protocol subjected to peer review and given ‘In Principle Acceptance’ for publication before data collection commenced. The final manuscript was compared against the initial protocol and analysis plans to ensure consistency and that any deviations were adequately explained.

Reflections

Were there any challenges or barriers to engaging in open research?

The peer review process prior to data collection took time (8 weeks in our case), which added pressure.
There are issues with regards to anonymity of participants and openly sharing research data.

How did you overcome these?

Having made the decision conduct this study as a registered report from the outset, we were able to submit manuscripts and documents early to allow for extended review windows, which ensured our data collection timelines could be kept.
We ensured that open access data sharing was explained in our study, and consent to share their anonymised data was gained from the participants.
We also took steps to anonymise data prior to sharing the dataset open access in line with our ethical approval documents and data management plans.

How has open research impacted your project/or might in the future?

The registered report process gave me the confidence to conduct research without worrying about the significance of results.
The process also allowed me to get peer review on my protocol at a stage when it could still be amended, which in our case improved the quality of the finished paper.

Take home message

Registered reports offer PhD students the opportunity to conduct studies without the fear that null results will prevent their research from being published. Additionally, external peer-review at an early stage can improve the quality of the overall study, which could influence their overall thesis.

About the author

Alexander Maclellan is a PhD student in the Department of Psychology who is researching the effectiveness of digital interventions for mental health, and the role of executive functioning as a mechanism of action.

The effects of isolated game elements on adherence in food-based response inhibition training

This case study was provided by Alex Maclellan, a PhD student in the Department of Psychology.