Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Teachers’ capacity to design gamified learning requires measures whose scores remain interpretable beyond their development context. This study examined the 22-item Questionnaire of Gamification Skills in Teachers (QGST), with wording changes from the Mexican original, in 1367 teachers in Spain. The most frequent stages were compulsory secondary (39.1%), primary (27.0%), and upper-secondary education (20.9%); categories were non-exclusive. Ordinal confirmatory factor analysis compared correlated three-factor and single-factor models, with cross-checks in two random halves. Item distributions, reliability, local residuals, and associations with specific training and implementation were examined. Separate sensitivity analyses excluded probable duplicate and constant-response records. The three-factor model outperformed the single-factor model and showed adequate comparative fit (CFI = 0.959; TLI = 0.954), but mixed absolute fit (RMSEA = 0.105; SRMR = 0.082). Four residual correlations exceeded 0.20, and omega ranged from 0.833 to 0.908. Teachers reporting training and previous implementation scored higher across dimensions, although these self-reported associations do not independently establish teaching competence. The findings support cautious research use and formative reflection through three provisional dimension scores, rather than diagnostic classification, proficiency cut-offs, or an interpretable unidimensional total. Factor meaning, response anchors, measurement invariance, and external performance evidence require further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Belmonte-Cortés et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: