Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of video games for low-income adults on financial knowledge. This profile focuses on the Farm Blitz video game. The authors investigated similar research questions for another video game, the profile can be found here.
- The study used an interrupted time series design. Using data from a pre- and post-test, the authors compared the outcomes of individuals before and after playing the video game.
- The study found a relationship between the Farm Blitz video game and increased financial knowledge. However, the authors did not provide tests of statistical significance.
- The study receives a low evidence rating. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Farm Blitz video game; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Farm Blitz Video Game
Features of the Intervention
A design team at the MIT Education Arcade collaborated with the nonprofit organization, Doorways to Dreams (D2D), to create a video game designed to improve users’ financial knowledge. Additional goals of the video game were to improve users’ confidence in their ability to understand the trade-off between borrowing and saving money when interest is compounded. During the game, a player is responsible for managing a farm. The farmer earns money by harvesting a row of three identical crops. This money is placed in an account that cannot be accessed until the round ends. If the farmer needs money before the harvest (round) ends, he or she must borrow. If they borrow too much, the loans (in the form of rabbits, which multiply quickly) escape a pen and destroy their crops. At the end of the round, the player can add money to their savings account (short-term savings), buy trees (long-term savings), and/or pay off their debt (decrease the number or rabbits). Farm Blitz is the third game created by these developers to increase financial literacy.
Features of the Study
The game was tested in three cities: Bronx, New York; Jacksonville, Florida; and Austin, Texas. In each city, D2D identified one or more community partners to manage recruitment and testing. The study sample included 41 low-income adults. After arriving at the testing center, study participants completed a pre-test to measure their financial knowledge, including knowledge about interest rates and interest compounding, savings, and finance charges. After the game ended, or no more than 90 minutes after starting, participants completed a post-test which was identical to the pre-test. Pre- and post-test measures included nine true/false questions adapted from the National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) Evaluation Toolkit. The study authors compared the pre-test and post-test scores of participants, reporting the percentage of participants that answered each item correctly at the pre-test and post-test, and the change between the two measures. However, the authors did not provide tests of statistical significance.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors compared the outcomes of participants measured before and after they played the Farm Blitz video game. For these types of designs, the authors must observe outcomes for multiple periods before the intervention to rule out the possibility that participants had increasing or decreasing trends in the outcomes examined before receiving the intervention. Without knowing the trends before receiving the intervention, we cannot rule this out. Therefore, the study receives a low causal evidence rating.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not account for trends in outcomes before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Farm Blitz video game; other factors are likely to have contributed.