IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v45y2014i3p318-331.html

A Mathematical Law for Assessing Outcome Values of Games

Author

Listed:
  • John R. Dickinson

Abstract

Background The predominate outcomes of many computerized simulation games , particularly business games , are numeric values, for example, financial statements, as determined by the game algorithm . Numerous types of algorithms have been put forth. Attending these algorithms are issues of their validity; numerous approaches to validation also having been put forth. Aim This research presents a type of digital analysis , Benford’s Law , as a basis for assessing the validity of simulation game numeric outcome values , that is, algorithmic validity . Method To illustrate the application of Benford’s Law, it was applied to income statement items from a business game competition. The first digits and second digits , respectively, of numeric outcome values were analyzed. Results Both the first digits and the second digits conform closely to Benford’s Law . Less conforming outcomes were those of assigned values to which Benford’s Law does not apply. Conclusion Benford’s Law is conceptually and practically appropriate for assessing simulation game numeric outcome values . An example of its application demonstrates this appropriateness.

Suggested Citation

  • John R. Dickinson, 2014. "A Mathematical Law for Assessing Outcome Values of Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 45(3), pages 318-331, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:45:y:2014:i:3:p:318-331
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878114530813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878114530813
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878114530813?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Hale Feinstein & Hugh M. Cannon, 2003. "A Hermeneutical Approach to External Validation of Simulation Models," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 34(2), pages 186-197, June.
    2. E. M. Babb & M. A. Leslie & M. D. Van Slyke, 1966. "The Potential of Business-Gaming Methods in Research," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39, pages 465-465.
    3. Andrew Hale Feinstein & Hugh M. Cannon, 2002. "Constructs of Simulation Evaluation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 33(4), pages 425-440, December.
    4. Steven Gold, 2005. "System-dynamics-based modeling of business simulation algorithms," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 36(2), pages 203-218, June.
    5. Hugh M. Cannon & Manfred Schwaiger, 2005. "An algorithm for incorporating company reputation into business simulations: Variations on the Gold standard," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 36(2), pages 219-237, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James N. Cannon & Hugh M. Cannon & Manfred Schwaiger, 2012. "Modeling the “Profitable-Product Death Spiralâ€," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 43(6), pages 761-777, December.
    2. Precha Thavikulwat, 2004. "The Architecture of Computerized Business Gaming Simulations," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 35(2), pages 242-269, June.
    3. James N. Cannon & Hugh M. Cannon & James T. Low, 2013. "Modeling Tactical Product-Mix Decisions," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 44(5), pages 624-644, October.
    4. Jerry Gosen & John Washbush, 2004. "A Review of Scholarship on Assessing Experiential Learning Effectiveness," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 35(2), pages 270-293, June.
    5. Dirk-Jan Koch, 2011. "NGOs—Cooperation and Competition," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 42(6), pages 690-710, December.
    6. Hugh M. Cannon & Manfred Schwaiger, 2005. "The role of company reputation in business simulations," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 36(2), pages 188-202, June.
    7. Martijn C. Koops & Ineke Verheul & Rinus Tiesma & Cees-Willem de Boer & Ruben T. Koeweiden, 2016. "Learning Differences Between 3D vs. 2D Entertainment and Educational Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(2), pages 159-178, April.
    8. Andrew Hale Feinstein & Hugh M. Cannon, 2003. "A Hermeneutical Approach to External Validation of Simulation Models," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 34(2), pages 186-197, June.
    9. Sebastiaan Meijer, 2015. "The Power of Sponges," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 512-535, October.
    10. Peter Korfiatis & Robert Cloutier & Teresa Zigh, 2015. "Model-Based Concept of Operations Development Using Gaming Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 471-488, October.
    11. Robert A. Clark & Kathy A. Paulson Gjerde & Deborah Skinner, 2003. "The effects of interdisciplinary instruction on simulation performance," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 34(1), pages 150-163, March.
    12. Hugh M. Cannon & Manfred Schwaiger, 2005. "An algorithm for incorporating company reputation into business simulations: Variations on the Gold standard," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 36(2), pages 219-237, June.
    13. Precha Thavikulwat, 2017. "Recipes for Structural Fairness in Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(5), pages 670-694, October.
    14. Martin S. Schilling & Matthew A. Mulford & Ingmar R. Geiger, 2006. "Collective bargaining as a two-level game: Direct learner-expert interactions," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 37(3), pages 326-338, September.
    15. G. van Lankveld & E. Sehic & J. C. Lo & S. A. Meijer, 2017. "Assessing Gaming Simulation Validity for Training Traffic Controllers," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(2), pages 219-235, April.
    16. Esther E. Klein & Paul J. Herskovitz, 2005. "Philosophical foundations of computer simulation validation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 36(3), pages 303-329, September.
    17. Joseph Wolfe & Steven Gold, 2007. "A study of business game stock price algorithms," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 38(2), pages 153-167, June.
    18. Dana Tschannen & Joseph D. Yaksich & Michelle Aebersold & Antonia Villarruel, 2016. "Fidelity After SECOND LIFE Facilitator Training in a Sexual Risk Behavior Intervention," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(1), pages 130-150, February.
    19. Hugh M. Cannon & James N. Cannon & Manfred Schwaiger, 2010. "Incorporating Customer Lifetime Value Into Marketing Simulation Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(3), pages 341-359, June.
    20. Katherine A. Wilson & Wendy L. Bedwell & Elizabeth H. Lazzara & Eduardo Salas & C. Shawn Burke & Jamie L. Estock & Kara L. Orvis & Curtis Conkey, 2009. "Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 40(2), pages 217-266, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:45:y:2014:i:3:p:318-331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.