Next Article in Journal
The History of Earth and Life: Escape Room for High School Students
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Pseudoscientific Beliefs Among University Students in Northeastern Mexico
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Simulation-Based and Flipped Classroom Learning on Self-Perceived Clinical Skills Compared to Traditional Training
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/educsci15040484
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Usability Evaluation of a Board Game for Learning Robotics of Care

by
Blanca Gonzalo-de Diego
1,2,*,
Alexandra González-Aguña
2,3,
Marta Fernández-Batalla
2,4,
Enrique Monsalvo-San Macario
2,5,
Andrea Sierra-Ortega
1,2,
Roberto Barchino-Plata
2,6,
María Lourdes Jiménez-Rodríguez
2,6 and
José María Santamaría-García
1,2
1
Meco Health Centre, Community of Madrid Health Service (SERMAS), 28880 Madrid, Spain
2
Research Group MISKC, Department of Computer Science, University of Alcala, University Campus, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Spain
3
Santa Cristina University Hospital, Community of Madrid Health Service (SERMAS), 28009 Madrid, Spain
4
Northern Assistance Directorate, Primary Care Assistance Management, Community of Madrid Health Service (SERMAS), 28035 Madrid, Spain
5
Juan de Austria Health Centre, Community of Madrid Health Service (SERMAS), 28840 Madrid, Spain
6
Computer Science Department, University of Alcala, 28805 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 484; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040484
Submission received: 25 February 2025 / Revised: 29 March 2025 / Accepted: 10 April 2025 / Published: 13 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Technology-Enhanced Nursing and Health Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gamification and game-based learning provide the opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills on a given subject in a practical and interactive way. They are an innovative teaching methodology that could be used for competence acquisition in a variety of fields. This study focuses on two domains: technology (including robotics) and care. This study evaluates the usability of RobotCareMaker®, a board game designed to teach care robotics, a branch of robotics oriented towards the study of human care. RobotCareMaker® consists of 106 elements. The playing cards are the engine of the game and the element of interaction between players. A convenience sample was selected. Usability was evaluated by the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire modified for the game, and three questions about the game experience were used. Using a modified SUS questionnaire, 21 participants rated it with an excellent score of 80.36. Over 90% found the instructions clear and error-free. RobotCareMaker® allows teachers, professionals, and nursing students to integrate curricular competencies in novel topics such as care robotics. The result suggests that RobotCareMaker® enhances learning in assistive robotics, improving competencies in education and healthcare.

1. Introduction

Gamification and game-based learning provide an opportunity for the acquisition of knowledge and skills on a given topic in a practical and interactive way (Karagiorgas & Niemann, 2017). These methodologies represent a novel teaching approach with the potential for application in a diverse range of fields. The present study focuses on two domains: technology (including robotics) and care.

Gamification and Game-Based Learning

The term gamification is defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011, p. 9). From a pedagogical perspective, game-based learning can be defined as the utilization of games as a tool for learning, with these games being incorporated into a variety of educational practices. This pedagogical approach has given rise to the creation and development of different inventive ideas in this line of research designed by a group of experts (Frolli et al., 2023; Plass et al., 2015).
There are four categories of gaming in education: game-based learning, serious games, gamification, and simulation (Bennani et al., 2021). Game-based learning is fundamentally based on learning through video games, while simulation allows experimentation in a virtual world (Bennani et al., 2021; Verkuyl et al., 2017). Serious games and gamification are frequently confused; both aim to improve learning outcomes, but serious games have direct learning while gamification uses game elements in a broader context (Bennani et al., 2021; Taspinar et al., 2016).
In the development of gamification tools, particular emphasis is placed on the use and design of specific mechanics, game dynamics, and aesthetically pleasing interfaces for the user, which correspond to proposals such as the MDA-Framework (Böckle et al., 2018).
A systematic review (Tavares, 2022) explored student experience and learning when using game-based learning, aiming to understand its uses in the nursing curriculum. The study concluded that game-based learning is an important alternative to traditional teaching methods. The study found that such strategies were well accepted among students and made learning more enjoyable. It also showed that it had a positive impact on knowledge retention, skill acquisition, and the consolidation of conceptual content among nursing students. Other authors reviewed the effectiveness of game-thinking on learning outcomes in nursing education and concluded that the incorporation of gamification strategies improves academic engagement and maintains motivation. The results of the study suggest that implementing these strategies could have an impact on potential drop-outs by improving their academic performance in knowledge and skills (Nylén-Eriksen et al., 2025).
A number of proposals have been made for the utilization of gamification in the domain of nursing. It has been applied to training in pediatric care by comparing the learning of a care protocol through traditional methods and innovative methods such as gamification (Ghaffarifar et al., 2024); in emergency care by designing gamified web interfaces (Assunta et al., 2024); and in mental health care by incorporating a board game that facilitates knowledge acquisition while simultaneously training psychiatric education teachers (Wu et al., 2023). Furthermore, there are studies that focus on topics related to the clinical practice of nursing in educational settings (Inangil et al., 2022; Jung Chan et al., 2024; Rosa-Castillo et al., 2022). Concurrently, other studies have explored students’ perceptions, attitudes, and motivations regarding game-based learning (Gaurina et al., 2025; Johns et al., 2025).
In this particular instance, the proposal is based on the utilization of gamified techniques, such as board games, for the purpose of introducing a novel domain of nursing knowledge, namely robotics, computing, and their intersection with healthcare.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Care Robotics

Robotics and artificial intelligence are technologies that have had and will continue to have a significant impact on our society (European Parliament, 2020). Their utilization has proliferated to diverse domains, including health sciences and nursing (Tietze & Mcbride, 2020).
González Aguña et al. (2023) define care robotics as “a branch of care-oriented robotics, which has been established as a part of artificial intelligence that integrates mechanical engineering, electronic engineering, and computer science for the design of automated systems that perform tasks and even simulate human behavior” (p. 15). Consequently, care robotics is defined as the care-oriented branch of robotics (Gonzalo de Diego, 2019).
This novel field of knowledge has been explored by several authors, who have described competencies in care robotics in the nursing field. These authors define the profile of an expert in care robotics, the robotic nurse. These competencies encompass the acquisition of knowledge related to nursing concepts, models of care, and robotic systems concepts, as well as the ability to design systems within the paradigm of care robotics (Gonzalo de Diego et al., 2024). The complexity of these competencies, which align with the levels of informatics specialist and informatics innovator (Staggers et al., 2002), and the novel topic (robotics and health care), pose a significant challenge for researchers in the context of robotic nursing education. In this context, game-based learning or gamification can be employed as an innovative learning and teaching strategy in these new developments in nursing. For this reason, the Healthcare Informatics Research (MISKC) Group of the University of Alcalá proposed the design and construction of a game for the acquisition of competencies in care robotics in 2022: RobotCareMaker®. The objective of the game, the elements, and the rules of use are described below.

2.2. RobotCareMaker®: Description and Characteristics

RobotCareMaker® is a board game oriented to robotics learning and care, developed and patented by the Healthcare Informatics Research (MISKC) Group of the University of Alcalá.
The game was registered, according to Spanish regulations, through three procedures: registration of the trademark, registration of the industrial design, and registration of the property. A Figurative Trademark with code M4183155 was registered at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (Ministry of Industry and Tourism, 2024). The board and game pieces were patented by industrial design registration number 0534571, also at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (Ministry of Industry and Tourism, 2024). The RobotCareMaker® Instruction Manual was registered in the virtual portal of the Territorial Registry of Intellectual Property of the Community of Madrid with file number 09-RTPI-07037.4/2022 (Community of Madrid, 2024).
RobotCareMaker® takes as a reference the Nursing Process (American Nursing Association, 2024), the universal self-care requisites (Orem, 1993) proposed by Dorothea Orem in the Self-Care Deficit Nursing Theory, and the components in the construction of a robot (Barrientos et al., 1997): input, processor, energy, communication and output.
Its development follows the model of construction of knowledge-based systems characteristic of the computational branch (Jiménez Rodríguez et al., 2010).
RobotCareMaker® has specific game mechanics and dynamics based on the knowledge framework of care robotics. It is a collaborative board game in which all players have to build different care robots. The objective of RobotCareMaker® is to address the health needs of your character. To this end, participants are tasked with constructing a robot capable of accomplishing this objective.
The game is designed for players aged 10 years and older. The game can be played by between two and five participants. The playing time is approximately 15 min. The game can be played either individually or in pairs. The fundamental elements of the game are the playing cards. These playing cards form the basis of the game mechanics and dynamics.
The aesthetics of RobotCareMaker® have a visually appealing design for the user and use narrative through a story around which the game is developed. The narrative unfolds through the assistance of entities entrusted with the care of dreams, mobility, breathing, feeding, and safety. The player may become capable of building new helpers to facilitate the care of humans: the robots of care.
From a conceptual standpoint, RobotCareMaker® has proposed a model for constructing devices based on the paradigm of robotics of care. This model incorporates concepts such as information input, information processing, communication with the environment, energy, and information output. The model also aligns with the precepts of the scientific nursing discipline by means of the statement of needs and potential health problems related to one or several needs.
The wide age range for which RobotCareMaker® has been designed allows it to serve as an alternative to introduce basic concepts of human care, such as the different needs and the different parts of a robot, in a simple way to young and old. In the case of students, teachers, and other healthcare professionals, it serves as an introduction to computer and robotics concepts. For other agents unfamiliar with healthcare, it serves as an introduction to the topic. However, prior to its integration into different curricula and/or other environments as a tool for learning, teaching, and formative assessment, the usability of the game was analyzed to establish its feasibility of use as a training tool in the field of care robotics. The aim of this study is to analyze the usability of the board game RobotCareMaker®.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

This research utilized a usability study design to investigate the feasibility of using RobotCareMaker® as a game for training in care robotics. It is a descriptive study in which quantitative and qualitative data collected from the sample are analyzed (see Section 3.4 and Section 3.6).

3.2. Sample and Setting

The study was carried out between November 2022 and December 2023. One group selected by convenience sampling was taken as the sample for the study.
The group was selected during the Care Robotics Seminar held in Havana (Cuba) in November 2022. The inclusion criterion followed was the selection of all those who attended the seminar and used RobotCareMaker®.
Participants were informed of the procedure to be followed. First, the participants tested RobotCareMaker® supervised by four guides who were familiar with and had participated in the design and development of the game. They were then given the questionnaire described in the following section.

Sample Characteristics

The sample consisted of 21 participants. Data on sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. Most of the participants (85.71%) were females with a mean age of 43.86 years (SD: 11.69). Over half (52.38%) of participants were master’s level. A total of 33.3% of the participants had a Ph.D. degree, but the same percentage did not answer this question, and 100% of the participants claimed to belong to the professional nursing sector, with a professional experience of more than ten years in 80.95% of the participants. Regarding the academic level, one participant answered ‘others’, specifying a specialty in emergency care.

3.3. Instruments

The questionnaire included four questions on the characteristics of the sample of participants (see sample characteristics in the previous section), the System Usability Scale questionnaire, and three questions to assess the experience with RobotCareMaker®.

3.3.1. System Usability Scale Questionnaire

Usability is defined as “the quality of being easy to use” (Oxford University Press, 2024). Usability is widely used in the field of technology as it is a key element in defining the quality of a system (Đorđević, 2017). The System Usability Scale (SUS), one of the most widely used instruments to evaluate usability, is a simple ten-item scale that provides an overview of subjective evaluations of usability (Brooke, 2013; Balsa et al., 2020). This is the instrument used in the present study. In this case, the SUS has been used to measure the user experience in the use of RobotCareMaker® by modifying the sentences to adapt it to the evaluation of a game. Table 2 shows the original sentences and the corresponding adaptation to the game. The questionnaire used was in Spanish (González Aguña et al., 2022).
The SUS uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) to measure the items. Items 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are positive affirmations. Items 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are negative affirmations. The final score ranges from 0 to 100 points. The results can be: “awful” (less than 51), “poor” (51–68), “okay” (68), “good” (68–80.3), and “excellent” (greater than 80.3).

3.3.2. Evaluation of Experience with RobotCareMaker®

The questionnaire included three questions to assess the experience with RobotCareMaker® regarding legibility and aesthetics. The questions are: (1) The instruction manual is clear and allows you to understand the rules of the game; (2) The instruction manual avoids errors that may occur during the game; and (3) During the game experience you have encountered difficulties regarding the legibility of the letters and the distinction between colors. The type of answer was “yes” or “no”.
In addition, a space was left for free comments about the experience.

3.4. Data Collection

Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire, titled “Usability Analysis of RobotCareMaker®, a game designed for Robotics and Health Care Learning”, which was designed specifically for this research. The questionnaire is available in the Supplementary Materials.

3.5. Ethical Considerations and Approval Details

All participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the anonymous and voluntary nature of the questionnaire, and their right to refuse to participate or request to cancel their participation at any time, without affecting their participation in the rest of the services offered during the event. The questionnaire is part of the University of Alcalá Project “Impact of gamification in technologies, diagnosis and prescription in health care in the general population and in the nursing field”.
The data concerning the participants have been protected in accordance with the Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December on the Protection of Personal Data and the guarantee of personal rights. The data were collected and recorded in an anonymized form from the start. The project was approved by the International Nursing Informatics Network Cuba Ethics Committee with code 00ESP_111122.

3.6. Data Analysis and Synthesis

Data were collected in paper format and then transferred to a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel® by a researcher who also analyzed the responses. Data regarding participant description and SUS were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency measures, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum). Data regarding questions about the RobotCareMaker® experience were analyzed quantitatively: total and percentages.

4. Results

4.1. System Usability Scale

The results of the overall usability evaluation are shown in Table 3.
Participants gave an overall score of “excellent” (greater than 80.3). Sentence 3, “I thought the game was easy to use”, obtained an intermediate score of 3.71. This score was further away from the average with respect to the excellent result of 5 in that sentence. The sentence 4 “I think that I would need the support of a guide/instructor to be able to use this game” obtained an intermediate score of 3.43. This score was further away from the average with respect to the excellent result of 1 in that sentence.

4.2. Experienced Questions

The results of the questions regarding the experience with RobotCareMaker® are shown in Table 4.
Relative to the total sample, more than 90% of the participants indicated that the instruction manual was clear, made it possible to understand the rules of the game, and avoided errors.
However, a lower percentage (66.67% of the total) was obtained in the case of the legibility of the letters and the distinction between colors. A total of 9.52% of the participants did not answer these three questions since they left this part of the questionnaire blank, which corresponds to ‘don’t know’ or ‘don’t answer’ responses.

4.3. Comments in Free Text from Participants

Two participants would have liked to use the game for a longer period of time. One of the participants stated: “Implement the game in society; take it to all countries of the world”, and another stated: “Implement it in different scenarios. Use it frequently”.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In the literature, there are proposals for the integration of gamification in nursing, utilizing board games (Santos Almeida et al., 2024). However, there is an absence of literature addressing the intersection of robotics and nursing concepts. Other board games employed as learning resources focus on technical disciplines (Riquelme et al., 2024).
In relation to the SUS questionnaire, the original version was in English, but a version has been translated into Spanish (González Aguña et al., 2022) and has served as a guide for this study. Numerous studies have employed the concept of usability in the context of technology evaluation within the nursing field (Estévez-Pedraza et al., 2022; Laukkanen et al., 2022), but this is the first time it has been used in the field of gamification or game-based learning. There are studies in the field of gamification that use other scales to evaluate user experience, for example the Gameful Experiences Scale (GAMEX) (Eppmann et al., 2018), which has been applied to nursing students (Joy et al., 2024) and physiotherapy students (Sandoval-Hernández et al., 2023).
Although the study obtained a score of 80.36 for usability, which indicates an excellent result, there are differences between the results for the different sentences that make up the SUS.
In the case of the positive affirmations (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9), means above 4.5 with standard deviation below 1 were found in sentence 1: “I think that I would like to use this game frequently.” (M: 4.95; SD: 0.22), in relation with gaming entertainment; in sentence 5: “I found the various rules in this game were well integrated.“ (M: 4.76; SD: 0. 54), in relation with the gaming rules construction; and in sentence 7: “I would imagine that most people would learn to use this game very quickly.” (M: 4.52; SD: 0.68), in relation to ease of use. Meanwhile, statement 3: “I thought the game was easy to use.” (M: 3.71; SD: 1.69) and statement 9: “I felt very confident using the game.” (M: 4.33; SD: 1.28) scored worse. This is probably due to a lack of longer usage time with the game, as mentioned by two participants in the free comments.
In the case of the negative statements (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10), means below 1.5 with standard deviation below 1 were found only in sentence 6: “I thought there was too much inconsistency in this game.” (M: 1.19; SD: 0.87), in relation to the consistency of the game, with sentence 4: “I think that I would need the support of a guide/instructor to be able to use this game.” (M: 3.43; SD:1.69) and sentence 10: “I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this game.” (M: 2.24; SD: 1.61) obtaining the worst results. In the case of sentence 4, the need for a guide could also be related to the lack of playing time that would have allowed more time to read the instruction manual before starting development of the games. In the case of sentence 10, it could be related to the thematic complexity of the board game.
The results of the experience questions were positive, with 90% of the sample finding the instructions clear and error-free. However, a worse result was obtained in the case of the legibility of the letters and the distinction between colors, which is probably related to the size of the lettering in the case of the letters exposing alleged cases of care problems.
However, the research presents various limitations. The number of participants is limited and chosen for convenience. This results in a single group comprising a nursing profile and predominantly female participants. In future studies, a larger sample with a wider variety of profiles should be used. Furthermore, the present study focuses on the evaluation of the usability of the game, given that the design and development of the game are published through its formal registration, as described in the introduction.
While the study can be used to reinforce theoretical concepts in nursing education, it can also serve as a catalyst for logical thinking related to the design and development of technologies applied to healthcare.
The research findings show excellent usability of the game RobotCareMaker®, yet improvements are required in areas such as allowing more time for the user to play and enjoy the experience, and resolving legibility issues related to font size.
Moreover, future studies should encompass an analysis of the usability of RobotCareMaker® in different contexts so that RobotCareMaker® can be used in a non-nursing environment to bring care-related concepts to the general population.
In addition, the innovative development of RobotCareMaker® has enabled the creation of additional games and has demonstrated its potential as an educational tool for the general population, as well as for the education of future nursing students and professionals seeking to enhance their competencies in new technologies, such as robotics.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci15040484/s1, Supplementary Material S1: “Usability Analysis of RobotCareMaker®, a game designed for Robotics and Health Care Learning”.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.G.-d.D., A.G.-A., M.L.J.-R. and J.M.S.-G.; methodology, B.G.-d.D., A.G.-A., M.F.-B. and J.M.S.-G.; formal analysis, B.G.-d.D., A.G.-A., M.F.-B. and E.M.-S.M.; investigation, B.G.-d.D., A.G.-A., M.F.-B., E.M.-S.M., A.S.-O. and J.M.S.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, B.G.-d.D.; writing—review and editing, B.G.-d.D., R.B.-P., M.L.J.-R. and J.M.S.-G.; supervision, B.G.-d.D., R.B.-P., M.L.J.-R. and J.M.S.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by code 00ESP_111122. The Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of International Nursing Informatics Network Cuba (protocol code 00ESP_111122 and date of approval 11 November 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the following: the study is observational, has minimal or no risk for the subjects, the study is performed with anonymized data, and the confidentiality of personal data is guaranteed. The research design was established by a group of experts. The Ethics Committee granted an exemption from informed consent for this study after analyzing the research project that included the methodology and the treatment of the data.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. American Nursing Association. (2024). The nursing process. Available online: https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/workforce/what-is-nursing/the-nursing-process/ (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  2. Assunta, F., Matteo, A., Séverine, V., Guy, S., Aurélien, K., Oriana, K. P., & Philippe, D. (2024). Feasibility and acceptability of a serious game to study the effects of environmental distractors on emergency room nurse triage accuracy: A pilot study. International Emergency Nursing, 76, 101504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Balsa, J., Félix, I., Cláudio, A. P., Carmo, M. B., Costa E Silva, I., Guerreiro, A., & Pereira Guerreiro, M. (2020). Usability of an intelligent virtual assistant for promoting behavior change and self-care in older people with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Medical Systems, 44, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Barrientos, A., Peñín, L. F., Balaguer, C., & Aracil, R. (1997). Fundamentals of robotics. McGraw-Hill Interamericana. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennani, S., Maalel, A., & Ghezala, H. B. (2021). Adaptive gamification in E-learning: A literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(2), 628–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Böckle, M., Micheel, I., Bick, M., & Novak, J. (2018, January 3–6). A design framework for adaptive gamification applications. 51st Hawaii International Conference on System (pp. 1227–1236), Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brooke, J. (2013). SUS: A retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40. Available online: https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/JUS_Brooke_February_2013.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  8. Community of Madrid. (2024). Territorial intellectual property registry. Available online: https://www.comunidad.madrid/inversion/inicia-desarrolla-tu-empresa/registro-territorial-propiedad-intelectual (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  9. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September 29–30). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek ’11) (pp. 9–15), Tampere, Finland. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Đorđević, N. D. (2017). Usability: Key characteristic of software quality. Vojnotehnicki glasnik/Military Technical Courier, 65(2), 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Eppmann, R., Bekk, M., & Klein, K. (2018). Gameful experience in gamification: Construction and validation of a gameful experience scale [GAMEX]. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43(1), 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Estévez-Pedraza, Á. G., Hernández-Laredo, E., Millán-Guadarrama, M. E., Martínez-Méndez, R., Carrillo-Vega, M. F., & Parra-Rodríguez, L. (2022). Reliability and usability analysis of an embedded system capable of evaluating balance in elderly populations based on a modified WII balance board. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 11026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. European Parliament. (2020). Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0275_EN.html (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  14. Frolli, A., Cerciello, F., Esposito, C., Russo, M., & Bisogni, F. (2023). Learning Italian as a second language in a sample of Ukrainian children: A game-based learning approach. Pediatric Reports, 15(3), 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gaurina, M., Alajbeg, A., & Weber, I. (2025). The power of play: Investigating the effects of gamification on motivation and engagement in physics classroom. Education Sciences, 15(1), 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ghaffarifar, S., Behmanesh, F., Gholamnia-Shirvani, Z., Nikbakht, H.-A., & Nazmi, S. (2024). Designing, implementing and evaluating childbirth training protocol for undergraduate midwifery students with a computer and mobile application based on gamification method: Study protocol. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gonzalo de Diego, B. (2019). Robotics of care: Fundamental aspects and their consequences. Ene, Revista de Enfermería, 13(4). Available online: http://ene-enfermeria.org/ojs/index.php/ENE/article/view/1073 (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  18. Gonzalo de Diego, B., González Aguña, A., Fernández Batalla, M., Herrero Jaén, S., Sierra Ortega, A., Barchino Plata, R., & Santamaría García, J. M. (2024). Competencies in the robotics of care for nursing robotics: A scoping review. Healthcare, 12(6), 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. González Aguña, A., Fernández Batalla, M., Arias Baelo, C., Monsalvo San Macario, E., Gonzalo de Diego, B., & Santamaría García, J. M. (2022). Usability evaluation by nurses of a knowledge-based system of care plans for people hospitalized by COVID-19. Computer Informatics Nursing, 40(3), 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. González Aguña, A., Gonzalo de Diego, B., Páez Ramos, S., Fernández Batalla, M., Jiménez Rodríguez, M. L., & Santamaría García, J. M. (2023). Care robotics: An assessment of professional perception in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare, 11(7), 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Inangil, D., Dincer, B., & Kabuk, A. (2022). Effectiveness of the use of animation and gamification in online distance education during pandemic. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 40(5), 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jiménez Rodríguez, M. L., Santamaría García, J. M., Arribas Cachá, A., González Sotos, L. A., Barchino Plata, R., Gómez González, J. L., & Sellán Soto, C. (2010). Basis for the ontology of care (versión 1.0). Departamento de Metodología e Innovación del Cuidado. FUDEN. [Google Scholar]
  23. Johns, L., Bisset, L., Weightman, S., Grant, G., Shuker, M. A., & van de Mortel, T. (2025). Investigating the influence of a gamified resource on healthcare students’ attitudes, confidence, and knowledge regarding research concepts: A mixed-method study. Education Sciences, 15(2), 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Joy, S., Rumsey, K., & Ford, M. (2024). The treasures of renal isle: Evaluating a gamified module while enhancing student learning. SAGE Open Nursing, 10, 23779608241290683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jung Chan, S., Myun Kim, G., & Ah Kim, J. (2024). The effects of flipped learning and gamification on nursing students’ patient safety education: A mixed method study. Heliyon, 10(8), e29538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karagiorgas, D. N., & Niemann, S. (2017). Gamification and game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(4), 499–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Laukkanen, L., Suhonen, R., Löyttyniemi, E., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2022). The usability, feasibility and fidelity of the Ethics Quarter e-learning intervention for nurse managers. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ministry of Industry and Tourism. (2024). Spanish patent and trademark office. Available online: https://oepm.es/es/ (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  29. Nylén-Eriksen, M., Stojiljkovic, M., Lillekroken, D., Lindeflaten, K., Hessevaagbakke, E., Flølo, T. N., Hovland, O. J., Svarstad, A. M., Solberg, Hansen, S., Bjørnnes, A. K., & Tørris, C. (2025). Game-thinking; utilizing serious games and gamification in nursing education—A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 25, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Orem, D. E. (1993). Nursing: Concepts of practice (M. T. Luis Rodrigo, Trad.). BEdiciones Científicas y Técnicas, S.A. [Google Scholar]
  31. Oxford University Press. (2024). Oxford learner’s dictionaries. usability. Available online: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/usability?q=usability (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  32. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Riquelme, A., de Prado, J., Bonache, M. V., Rams, J., Sánchez, M., Torres, B., Rodriguez, M. D. E., Rodrigo, P., & Muñoz, B. K. (2024). Table games as a tool to learn about material science in engineering and architecture studies. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rosa-Castillo, A., García-Panella, Ó., Maestre-González, E., Pulpón-Segura, A., Roselló-Novella, A., & Solà-Pola, M. (2022). Gamification on instagram: Nursing students’ degree of satisfaction with and perception of learning in an educational game. Nurse Education Today, 118, 105533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sandoval-Hernández, I., Molina-Torres, G., León-Morillas, F., Ropero-Padilla, C., Gónzalez-Sánchez, M., & Martínez-Cal, J. (2023). Analysis of different gamification-based teaching resources for physiotherapy students: A comparative study. BMC Medical Education, 23, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santos Almeida, I., Pinto, C., Lima, A., Moreira, T., & Fernandez, C. S. (2024). Game4NurseSupervisor: Development of a board game for nursing mentoring. Nurse Education in Practice, 76, 103939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Staggers, N., Gassert, C. A., & Curran, C. A. (2002). Delphi study to determine informatics competencies for nurses at four levels of practice. Nursing Research, 51, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Taspinar, B., Schmidt, W., & Schunhbauer, H. (2016). Gamification in education: A Board game approach to knowledge acquisition. Procedia Computer Science, 99, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tavares, N. (2022). The use and impact of game-based learning on the learning experience and knowledge retention of nursing undergraduate students: A systematic literature review. Nurse Education Today, 117, 105484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tietze, M., & Mcbride, S. (2020). Robotics and the impact on nursing practice: Case study and pilot site analyses. Available online: https://www.nursingworld.org/globalassets/innovation/robotics-and-the-impact-on-nursing-practice_print_12-2-2020-pdf-1.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  41. Verkuyl, M., Hughes, M., Tsui, J., Betts, L., St-Amant, O., & Lapum, J. (2017). Virtual gaming simulation in nursing education: A focus group study. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(5), 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, C. S., Chen, M. F., Hwang, H. L., & Lee, B. O. (2023). Effectiveness of a nursing board games in psychiatric nursing course for undergraduate nursing students: An experimental design. Nurse Education in Practice, 70, 103657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Characteristicsn(%)
Gender
   Male314.29%
   Female1885.71%
Academic Level
   Ph.D Level314.29%
   Master Level1152.38%
   Degree419.05%
   Pre-graduate29.52%
   Others14.76%
Currently Studying
   Ph.D Level733.33%
   Master Level14.76%
   Degree314.29%
   Pre-graduate29.52%
   Others14.76%
   DK/NA733.33%
Professional Sector
   Nursing21100%
Field of Work *
   Care Field838.1%
   Educational Field838.1%
   Research Field314.29%
   Management Field628.57%
   Others29.52%
Professional Experienced
   More than ten years1780.95%
   Between five and ten years29.52%
   Less than five years29.52%
* The question regarding the field of work was a multiple-choice question.
Table 2. Adaptation of the System Usability Scale for a game.
Table 2. Adaptation of the System Usability Scale for a game.
System Usability Scale
Original SentencesAdaptation for the Game
1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently.1. I think that I would like to use this game frequently.
2. I found the system unnecessarily complex.2. I found the game unnecessarily complex.
3. I thought the system was easy to use.3. I thought the game was easy to use.
4. I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.4. I think that I would need the support of a guide/instructor to be able to use this game.
5. I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.5. I found the various rules in this game were well integrated.
6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this game.
7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this game very quickly.
8. I found the system very cumbersome to use.8. I found the game very cumbersome to use.
9. I felt very confident using the system.9. I felt very confident using the game.
10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this game.
Table 3. Usability Results.
Table 3. Usability Results.
USU RobotCareMaker®Group
MSDMedMinMax
80.3614.26
1. I think that I would like to use this game frequently.4.950.22545
2. I found the game unnecessarily complex.1.571.33115
3. I thought the game was easy to use.3.711.68515
4. I think that I would need the support of a guide/instructor to be able to use this game.3.431.69415
5. I found the various rules in this game were well integrated.4.760.54535
6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this game.1.190.87115
7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this game very quickly.4.520.68535
8. I found the game very cumbersome to use.1.711.52115
9. I felt very confident using the game.4.331.28515
10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this game.2.241.61115
M: Average; SD: Standard Deviation; Med: Median; Min: minime; Max: maxime
Table 4. Results of the experience questions.
Table 4. Results of the experience questions.
Experienced QuestionsGroup
n%
1. The instruction manual is clear and allows you to understand the rules of the game.
   Yes1990.48%
   No00%
   DK/NA29.52%
2. The instruction manual avoids errors that may occur during the game.
   Yes990.48%
   No00%
   DK/NA29.52%
3. During the game experience you have encountered difficulties regarding the legibility of the letters and the distinction between colors.
   Yes523.81%
   No1466.67%
   DK/NA29.52%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gonzalo-de Diego, B.; González-Aguña, A.; Fernández-Batalla, M.; Monsalvo-San Macario, E.; Sierra-Ortega, A.; Barchino-Plata, R.; Jiménez-Rodríguez, M.L.; Santamaría-García, J.M. Usability Evaluation of a Board Game for Learning Robotics of Care. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040484

AMA Style

Gonzalo-de Diego B, González-Aguña A, Fernández-Batalla M, Monsalvo-San Macario E, Sierra-Ortega A, Barchino-Plata R, Jiménez-Rodríguez ML, Santamaría-García JM. Usability Evaluation of a Board Game for Learning Robotics of Care. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(4):484. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040484

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gonzalo-de Diego, Blanca, Alexandra González-Aguña, Marta Fernández-Batalla, Enrique Monsalvo-San Macario, Andrea Sierra-Ortega, Roberto Barchino-Plata, María Lourdes Jiménez-Rodríguez, and José María Santamaría-García. 2025. "Usability Evaluation of a Board Game for Learning Robotics of Care" Education Sciences 15, no. 4: 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040484

APA Style

Gonzalo-de Diego, B., González-Aguña, A., Fernández-Batalla, M., Monsalvo-San Macario, E., Sierra-Ortega, A., Barchino-Plata, R., Jiménez-Rodríguez, M. L., & Santamaría-García, J. M. (2025). Usability Evaluation of a Board Game for Learning Robotics of Care. Education Sciences, 15(4), 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040484

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop