Freudly+971 508685814hello@freudly.ai
Freudly
cyberpsychology

Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement Scale Test

Take the online Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement Scale Test - AI psychologist FreudlyYou can take Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement Scale Test here. Online version of a simple and accurate psychological test with interpretation.en
Designed for self-reflection, the Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement Scale Test contains 64 questions and takes about 12 minutes. Its result indicates your level of involvement in role-playing computer games, including whether gaming may be influencing your mood, interests, routines, or relationships, helping you reflect on your gaming habits.
Questions: 6412 minutes
Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement: test ticket with numbers
October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published
31,609 views
3,820 completions
3,184 likes
Daniel HallPsychologist · Test reviewer
3,184 likes
Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Role-Playing Computer Game EngagementRPCGE
Measures how strongly a teenager is involved in role-playing video games and how much this involvement affects time, thoughts, and everyday interests.
example score180/320
180/320Moderate engagementexample score
64 – 104Low engagement
105 – 180Moderate engagement
181 – 320High engagement
A score of 180 indicates moderate engagement, suggesting role-playing games are a recurring interest but generally without a strong influence on other areas of life.
just completed the test
DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Concerned parents of gamers
41%OF USERS
Parents of 13–15-year-olds use it to see whether role-playing games are a normal hobby or are starting to affect mood, sleep, school, or family life.
School psychologists and counselors
34%OF USERS
Specialists administer it in consultations or prevention programs to screen for risky involvement and track changes over time.
Curious teen role-players
25%OF USERS
Teens take it to understand how much RPGs occupy their thoughts and time and whether their gaming feels under control.
BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.
Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Shaded area — where most people score
Dot — the average
You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test
Level of engagement in role-playing video gamesLoeirvg
You?
Average226.7
Typical rangeTypical188 – 265.4
Possible64 – 320
Featured On
SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

Below is a series of statements concerning attitudes toward role-playing computer games. For convenience, a role-playing computer game will hereafter be referred to as a “game” or a “role-playing game.” Before beginning the assessment, the term “role-playing computer game” is defined as follows: • A game in which there is a character (or several characters) and the player controls that character (those characters). Which types of role-playing computer games (hereafter, role-playing games) are distinguished? a) First-person games—when the player sees everything that happens in the game through the character’s eyes (e.g., Cleaner, Half-Life 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Medal of Honor, etc.). b) Third-person games—when the player views the character from an external perspective (e.g., Pirates of the Caribbean, Prince of Persia, GTA3 San Andreas, Around the World in 80 Days, etc.). c) Strategy games—when the player takes the role of a leader: a city mayor, emperor, military commander, special forces commander, etc. (e.g., Age of Empires, Alexander, SimCity, Cossacks 2, Caesar III (IV), Blitzkrieg (2), Brothers in Arms). If it is clear what is meant by computer games in this questionnaire, proceed to the next step—completing the questionnaire. To do so, read each statement carefully. Rate how true each statement is for you by selecting one of the response options. Please do not try to create a favorable impression with your responses; responses should reflect actual experience.
    • Always
    • Often
    • Sometimes
    • Rarely
    • Never
    • Always
    • Often
    • Sometimes
    • Rarely
    • Never
    • Always
    • Often
    • Sometimes
    • Rarely
    • Never
WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement Scale Test - Description and methodology of the test

cyberpsychology
computer games

People wanting to understand how role-playing games engage attention and emotions, and how that involvement carries into routines or relationships, can use the Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement Scale Test. It is intended for readers reflecting on their own gaming when play feels absorbing or competes with everyday commitments. Looking beyond one session matters because repeated thoughts, mood changes, or conflicts with commitments show whether this role-playing game engagement test captures broader involvement.

What This Assessment Explores

Items examine engagement through these dimensions:

  • Mental carryover shows whether game scenes or plans remain active during other activities.
  • Emotional identification indicates whether mood or self-image becomes linked with a character.
  • Loss of control reflects difficulty stopping, resisting an unplanned session, or tolerating interruption.
  • Everyday impact shows whether gaming competes with relationships, duties, sleep, concentration, or physical comfort.

Together, these themes show whether engagement stays within play or extends into daily life. The displayed computer game engagement scale, Role-Playing Computer Game Engagement, ranges from 64-320. Low engagement 64-104 indicates infrequent interest in gaming; Moderate engagement 105-180 indicates situational involvement without significant effects on other life domains; High engagement 181-320 indicates pronounced engagement affecting behaviour and interests. The scale may help identify risk of excessive involvement in role-playing games.

Methodology and Evidence Base

As a self-report questionnaire, the item format uses five frequency options, from Always to Never. The statements address thoughts, feelings, actions, and consequences: game scenes during routine tasks, identification with a character, preference for play over social time, and headaches or sleep disruption. Their content therefore examines attraction, control, and consequences of engagement rather than treating response frequency as a separate trait.

This gaming habits questionnaire focuses on one construct: its displayed result is one overall engagement scale rather than separate scales, and no item-level weighting rule is specified. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with Belovol and Kolotilova's 2011 role-playing-game engagement measure, without being presented as that published instrument or as an adaptation derived from its research sample.

Brockmyer et al. (2009) describe a separate published measure of video-game engagement, the Game Engagement Questionnaire; this questionnaire is not that instrument. The displayed bands are categories for this questionnaire rather than clinical thresholds; answers may vary with mood, memory, self-awareness, and candor.

Author: C. S. Green, D. A. Gentile
Literature:
  • Belovol, Elena Vladimirovna, and Inna Vladimirovna Kolotilova. "Development of a Questionnaire for Assessing the Degree of Engagement with Role-Playing Computer Games." Psychological Journal, 2011, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 49-58.
  • Kolotilova, Inna Vladimirovna. "Individual Psychological Characteristics of Adolescents Engaged in Role-Playing Computer Games." Abstract of a Candidate of Psychological Sciences Dissertation, Russian State Social University, Moscow, 2009, 21 pp.
  • Brockmyer, Jeanne H., Christine M. Fox, Kathleen A. Curtiss, Evan McBroom, Kimberly M. Burkhart, and Jacquelyn N. Pidruzny. "The Development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A Measure of Engagement in Video Game-Playing." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 624-634. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016.

Updated:

Popular tests
Comments
Leave a Comment