Playful study design is measured as a two-dimensional construct of designing fun and designing competition, supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Exploratory factor analysis retained a two-factor solution with all loadings above 0.35 and no substantive cross-loadings. → Costantini 2025 q3 i? Confirmatory factor analysis on the second half of the sample showed the two-factor model outperformed a single-factor alternative. → Costantini 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Costantini 2025¶

Costantini, A., Bakker, A. B., & Scharp, Y. S. (2025). Playful Study Design: A Novel Approach to Enhancing Student Well-Being and Academic Performance. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10022-6

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Exploratory factor analysis in the CFA framework on the first half of the Study 1 sample (N = 378 Italian psychology students) tested one- to four-factor solutions. The two-factor solution was retained, with loadings "ranged from 0.40 to 0.82" for designing fun and 0.47 to 0.77 for designing competition.

"the two-factor solution showed no such issues, with all factor loadings exceeding 0.35. Loadings for designing fun ranged from 0.40 to 0.82, and loadings for designing competition ranged from 0.47 to 0.77."

Costantini 2025 (2)¶

Costantini, A., Bakker, A. B., & Scharp, Y. S. (2025). Playful Study Design: A Novel Approach to Enhancing Student Well-Being and Academic Performance. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10022-6

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Confirmatory factor analysis on the second half of the Study 1 sample (N = 375) tested the two-factor structure after adding three residual covariances. The fitted model showed CFI = 0.94 and "outperformed an alternative single-factor model"; reliabilities were ω = 0.89 (fun) and ω = 0.81 (competition).

"Also, this two-factor model outperformed an alternative single-factor model (χ2 = 717.11; df = 54; CFI = 0.69; TLI = 0.62; RMSEA = 0.18; SRMR = 0.13)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• PSD dimensions correlate with trait curiosity, and playfulness correlates with designing fun but not designing competition, supporting the scale's convergent and discriminant validity — related
• Both PSD dimensions explain variance in study engagement and subjective well-being beyond core self-evaluations and PsyCap, with designing competition contributing most to engagement — related
• A quasi-experimental PSD training intervention increased students' use of fun and competition when studying, with greater active learning, study task proactivity and absorption over time — related
• Metacognitive awareness among multidisciplinary university students emerges as two dimensions: knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition — related
• Exploratory factor analysis in the pilot stage supported a four-factor solution, with three items removed (a weak loading, a cross-loading, and a low item–total correlation with duplicated content) — related
• Designing fun explains additional variance in peer interactions and popularity beyond core self-evaluations and PsyCap, whereas designing competition does not — related