Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Validating the Fun Toolkit: an instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents the Fun Toolkit (v3), a survey instrument that has been devised to assist researchers and developers to gather opinions about technology from children. In presenting the toolkit, the paper provides a reflective look at several studies where the toolkit has been validated and considers how the Fun Toolkit should be used as well as discussing how, and in what way, the instruments contained within it should be employed. This consideration of use is one of the novel contributions of the paper. The second major contribution is the discussion based around software appeal; in which the fit between the Fun Toolkit and usability and engagement is explored. The paper concludes that the Fun Toolkit is useful, that it can be used with some confidence to gather opinions from children and that it has the potential for use for other user experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Airey S, Plowman L, Connolly D, Luckin R (2002) Rating children’s enjoyment of toys, games and media. In: 3rd world congress of international toy research on toys, Games and Media, London

  • Barendregt W, Bekker MM, Bouwhuis DG, Baauw E (2006) Identifying usability and fun problems in a computer game during first use and after some practice. Int J Human Comput Stud 64:830–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bark I, Folstad A, Gulliksen J (2005) Use and usefulness of HCI methods: results from an exploratory study among nordic HCI practitioners, HCI 2005. Springer, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan RC, Biklen SK (1998) Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgers N, Hox J (2001) Item non response in questionnaire research with children. J Official Stat 17(2):321–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgers N, Hox J, Sikkel D (2002) Response quality in research with children and adolescents: the effect of labelled response opinions and vague quantifiers. Int J Public Opin Res 15(1):83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgers N, Hox J, Sikkel D (2004) Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: the effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Qual Quant 38(1):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosenberg A, Thomas J, Lopez T, Kokinsky E, Larsson IE (2003) Validation of a six-graded faces scale for evaluation of postoperative pain in children. Paediatr Anaesth 13:708–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell G (1995) Research methods in psychology. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruck M, Ceci SJ, Melnyk L (1997) External and internal sources of variation in the creation of false reports in children. Learn Individ Differ 9(4):269–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JM (2004) Beyond fun. Interactions 2:38–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JM, Thomas JC (1988) Fun. SIGCHI Bull 19(3):21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen L, Manion L (1994) Research methods in education. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Coolican H (2004) Research methods and statistics in psychology. Hodder and Stoughton, Abingdon

  • Denham SA, Auerbach S (1995) ‘Mother–child dialogue about emotions and pre-schoolers’ emotional competence. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 12(3):311–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Fransella F, Bannister D (1977) A manual for repertory grid technique. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Greig A, Taylor A (1999) Doing research with children. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna E, Risden K, Czerwinski M, Alexander KJ (1999) The role of usability research in designing children’s computer products. Druin A (ed) The design of children’s technology. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 4–26

  • Hanna L, Neapolitan D, Risden K (2004) Evaluating computer game concepts with children. IDC2004, ACM Press, Maryland

  • Hassenzahl M, Platz A, Burmester M, Lehner K (2000) Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. CHI2000, ACM Press The Hague, Amsterdam

  • Holoday B, Turner-Henson A (1989) Response effects in surveys with school-age children. Nurs Res (methodological corner) 38:248–250

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (1998) 9241—14 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s

  • van Kesteren I, Bekker MM, Vermeeren APOS, Lloyd P (2003) Assessing usability evaluation methods on their effectiveness to elicit verbal information from children subjects. IDC2003, ACM Press, Preston

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick JA (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol 5:213–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart A, Madden M, Hitlin P (2005) Teens and technology: youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. PEW Internet and American Life, Washington DC, p 57

  • Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140

  • MacFarlane SJ, Sim G, Horton M (2005) Assessing usability and fun in educational software. IDC2005, Co, ACM Press, Boulder

  • Markopoulos P, Bekker M (2002) Usability testing with children subjects: comparing usability testing methods. Interaction design and children, Eindhoven

  • Metaxas G, Metin B, Schneider J, Shapiro G, Zhou W, Markopoulos P (2005) SCORPIODROME: an exploration in mixed reality social gaming for children. ACE 2005, ACM Press, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Read JC, MacFarlane SJ (2000) Measuring fun—usability testing for children. Computers and Fun 3, BCS HCI Group, York, England

  • Read JC, MacFarlane SJ (2006) Using the Fun Toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. Interaction Design and Children, IDC2006, ACM Press, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  • Read JC, MacFarlane SJ, Casey C (2001a) Expectations and endurability—measuring fun. Computers and fun 4, York, England

  • Read JC, MacFarlane SJ, Casey C (2001b) Measuring the usability of text input methods for children, HCI2001. Springer, Lille

  • Read JC, Gregory P, MacFarlane SJ, McManus B, Gray P, Patel R (2002a) An investigation of participatory design with children—informant, balanced and facilitated design. Interaction Design and Children, Shaker Publishing, Eindhoven

  • Read JC, MacFarlane SJ, Casey C (2002b) Endurability, engagement and expectations: measuring children’s fun. Interaction Design and Children, Shaker Publishing, Eindhoven

  • Read JC, MacFarlane SJ, Horton M (2004) The usability of handwriting recognition for writing in the primary classroom, HCI 2004. Springer, Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  • Scullin MH, Ceci SJ (2001) A suggestibility scale for children. Person Individ Differ 30:843–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields BJ, Palermo TM, Powers JD, Grewe SD, Smith GA (2003) Predictors of a child’s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child Care Health Dev 29(4):281–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim G, MacFarlane SJ, Read JC (2006) All work and no play: measuring fun, usability, and learning in software for children. Comput Edu 46(3):235–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield P, Kraut R, Gross E (2001) The impact of computer use on children’s and adolescents’ development. Appl Dev Psychol 22:7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobey A, Goodman G (1992) Children’s eyewitness memory: effects of participation and forensic context. Child Abuse Neglect 16:807–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson N, McLean S (1994) Questionnaire design: a practical introduction. Co Antrim, University of Ulster Press, Newton Abbey, pp 94–120

  • Wong DL, Baker CM (1988) Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurse 14:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngman MB (1984) Designing questionnaires. In: Bell J, Bush T, Fox A, Goodey J, Goulding S (eds) Conducting small scale investigations in education management. Harper and Row, London, pp 156–176

Download references

Acknowledgments

Hundreds of children have freely shared their opinions and views, they are acknowledged here for their willingness to provide windows into their worlds, for moments of amusement, and for the many special insights they have provided. Also, thanks to Dr Stuart MacFarlane who provided some assistance with the statistics in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Janet C. Read

Authors
  1. Janet C. Read
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet C. Read.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Read, J.C. Validating the Fun Toolkit: an instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cogn Tech Work 10, 119–128 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0069-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0069-9

Keywords