Erratum: Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education

The updated original online version for this chapter can be found at DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_37 and DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_48

Erratum to:

Chapter 37 in: Michael Sailer, Jan Hense, Heinz Mandl, and Markus Klevers, Fostering Development of Work Competencies and Motivation via Gamification, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_37.

The original version of this chapter was inadvertently published with incorrect F values in the results of MANCOVA listed in page 811 and 812. The comma in the brackets was erased which resulted “F(1100)” instead of “F(1,100)”

The value of 21.98 was published incorrectly as 21,98 in the original version of the book. It is updated in page 811.

• Regarding quantitative performance, the gamification group achieved 62.44 (SD = 15.92) picks on average, while the control group achieved 46.82 (SD = 18.92) picks. A MANCOVA indicates that this quantitative performance is significantly higher in the gamification group than in the control group, F(1,100) = 72.49, p < .01, η_p ² = .420.

• Regarding qualitative performance, the gamification group achieved an accuracy rate of 94 % (SD = .07) on average. The control group achieved an accuracy rate of 87 % (SD = .14) on average. A MANCOVA indicates that this qualitative performance is significantly higher in the gamification group than in the control group, F(1,100) = 21.98, p < .01, η_p ² = .180.

2. To what extent can gamification work-integrated training environments foster experiences of competence, autonomy regarding task meaningfulness, autonomy regarding decision freedom and relatedness?

• Regarding the experience of competence, the gamification group scored 4.81 (SD = 1.40) on a seven-point Likert scale, while the control group scored 4.11 (SD = 1.13). A MANCOVA indicates that participants from the gamification group have significantly higher experiences of competence than participants from the control group, F(1,100) = 8.11, p < .01, η_p ² = .075.

• Regarding the experience of task meaningfulness ( autonomy ), the gamification group scored 5.46 (SD = 1.06) on a seven-point Likert scale, while the control group scored 4.34 (SD = 1.38). A MANCOVA indicates that participants from the gamification group have significantly higher experiences of task meaningfulness than participants from the control group, F(1,100) = 18.90, p < .01, η_p ² = .159.

• Regarding the experience of decision freedom (autonomy), the gamification group scored 4.03 (SD = 1.49) on a seven-point Likert scale, while the control group scored 3.64 (SD = 1.58). A MANCOVA indicates that participants from the gamification group have significantly higher experiences of decision freedom than participants from the control group, F(1,100) = 4.03, p < .05, η_p ² = .039.

• Regarding the experience of relatedness, the gamification group scored 3.31 (SD = 1.47) on a seven-point Likert scale, while the control group scored 1.93 (SD = .99). A MANCOVA indicates that participants from the gamification group have significantly higher experiences of relatedness than participants from the control group F(1,100) = 27.85, p < .01, η_p ² = .218.

Erratum to:

Chapter 48 in: Susan Seeber and Eveline Wittmann, Social Competence Research: A Review, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_48.

The original version of this chapter was inadvertently published without reference for figure 1. The reference is updated in the reference list as : “Kanning, U. (2009b). Inventar sozialer Kompetenzen. Göttingen: Hogrefe”.