Original Research

Gamification and vocational assessments: A systematic review

Yaseerah Akoodie, Sumaya Laher, Sergio Peral

Received: 06 Mar. 2025; Accepted: 23 May 2025; Published: 08 Sept. 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Gamification – the integration of game-like elements into non-gaming contexts – has gained attention for improving engagement, motivation and user experience in assessment. While widely used in organisations, its role in vocational assessment remains underexplored.

Objective: This systematic review aims to explore how gamification is employed in vocational assessments, focusing on its practical uses, associated benefits and identified limitations.

Methods: Using a structured eight-step systematic review process, searches were conducted across four electronic databases to identify relevant articles published between 2010 and 2024 that utilised gamification in vocational assessment. After an extensive full-text screening and quality appraisal, six articles met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis using coding reliability was applied to organise findings into relevant themes.

Results: From the themes it was evident that gamification enhances engagement, motivation and skill development in vocational assessments. Interactive simulations can help individuals adapt to evolving career demands. However, ethical concerns such as data privacy, cultural biases and the balance between technology and human-centred approaches present challenges.

Conclusion: Gamification supported by advancements in artificial intelligence demonstrates great promise in vocational assessment. Addressing ethical considerations and cultural sensitivities is essential to maximise its effectiveness. Proper implementation can transform these tools into powerful career development resources.

Contribution: This study highlights gamification’s potential in vocational assessment, emphasising its role in engagement, motivation and skill development. It outlines key benefits and challenges, offering insights for ethical and culturally sensitive implementation to maximise its effectiveness in empowering diverse individuals in career planning and development.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; gamification; gamified assessment; vocational assessment; career guidance; ethics.

Introduction

Gamification – the use of game-like elements in non-game contexts – is gaining attention in psychological assessment, particularly in vocational contexts, because of its potential to enhance user engagement, motivation and the perceived relevance of assessments (Hamari et al., 2014; Karagiorgas & Niemann, 2017). In vocational assessment, where effective career matching depends on personal reflection and sustained motivation, gamified tools offer an engaging, client-centred approach that resonates with younger generations accustomed to interactive digital environments. Although widely applied in education and corporate training, the use of gamification in vocational psychological assessment remains underexplored – especially in low- and middle-income settings such as South Africa. Core game elements such as feedback loops, progress tracking and challenge-based tasks have been shown to increase attention, intrinsic motivation and perceived task relevance (Seaborn & Fels, 2015). These features align with the psychological demands of vocational assessment, which requires individuals to reflect on their values, skills and aspirations and thus holds potential for use in this space.

In South Africa, where young people face persistent socioeconomic barriers, educational inequalities and high unemployment rates, the need for innovative, scalable career assessment tools is urgent. Gamification may help bridge access gaps by offering assessments that are both engaging and accessible. However, without a clear understanding of what works, for whom and under what conditions, there is a risk that implementation may be driven more by novelty than by evidence.

A systematic review provides a rigorous and transparent approach to synthesising current research, identifying methodological trends and assessing the efficacy of gamified vocational assessments. This review therefore aims to examine how gamification has been applied in vocational assessment as well as its effectiveness. The literature review for this study contextualises the understanding of gamification within the field of assessment by clarifying the core concepts.

What is gamification?

Gamification may be defined as the process of enhancing services through the inclusion of game elements into a non-gaming context (Deterding et al., 2011). This technique has been implemented in various industries such as commerce, health and education (Hamari et al., 2014). It is believed to be an effective tool based on the association between the game experience and the enjoyment and intrinsic motivation that it may offer to the task at hand (Inocencio, 2018). Motivation, in this context, refers to the psychological processes that drive individuals to engage with tasks or activities enhanced by game-like elements such as badges, leaderboards or immediate feedback. These elements aim to increase engagement and satisfaction by tapping into both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Huotari and Hamari (2012) previously highlighted gamification as a supporting agent for value creation for users, through motivational affordances as well. This places motivation in a significant position in gamification as it suggests that engaging users in this manner encourages performance and adds value to the task. While the direct effects on intrinsic motivation are unclear, gamification has empirically proven that performance can be enhanced by providing external motivators in the form of game elements, for example; badges, leaderboards, levels, points, competition and challenges, virtual goods, content unlocking and more (Mekler et al., 2017; Werbach & Hunter, 2012). In this manner, gamification may leverage both types of motivation by providing rewards and immediate feedback. Unlike traditional assessments that often rely on delayed feedback and extrinsic motivation, gamified systems offer real-time recognition. For instance, earning badges or climbing leaderboards provides immediate acknowledgement of achievements, fostering a sense of accomplishment and encouraging continued engagement (Deterding et al., 2011).

Further popularity is acquired because of the encouragement towards collaborative learning, the increased levels of participation and attractiveness, ease of use, continual engagement and the productivity provided (Kocadere & Cağlar, 2015). However, this effectiveness is debatable as some studies show that the gamification effect on motivation is lower than the expectations created by such publicity (Inocencio, 2018). Within assessment, gamification is employed in two ways, either as a gamified assessment or a game-based assessment (GBA) (Distiller, in press; Georgiou et al., 2019).

Gamified assessment versus game-based assessment

Gamified assessment refers to the use of game design elements – such as points, levels, challenges, feedback and rewards within assessment processes. These assessments maintain the core purpose of evaluating skills, knowledge or attributes but present tasks in a more interactive, game-like format. Sometimes referred to as gameful design, gamified assessments maintain the psychometric properties that are used in a traditional assessment but differ from a traditional assessment in its application. The application of game elements are used to create an enjoyable, productive, efficient, less anxiety-provoking and more playful environment (Georgiou et al., 2019; Landers & Sanchez, 2022).

Game-based assessments alter the core of a traditional assessment model by utilising the complete scope of game thinking, applying the principles of game design to measure human performance and capitalising on the inherent psychometric properties and participants’ striving nature towards games (Georgiou et al., 2019; Landers & Sanchez, 2022; Landers et al., 2022). Game-based assessment focuses primarily on rebuilding an assessment as a game. A requirement of GBA is that the assessment is engaging and voluntary in order to capture an individual’s peak performance (Heinzen, 2014). The strength of GBA arises in monitoring the performance of an individual by analysing the information trails left behind by participants therefore alluding to GBA as a formative assessment too (Stanciu & David, 2020). Game-based assessment emphasises on the time taken to respond, accuracy of the answers, points earned, the internal thought processes of individuals over time and the number of attempts candidates make. All this information is transferred to a spreadsheet for analysis in order to produce in-depth results that traditional assessments cannot provide (Stanciu & David, 2020).

Game-based assessments thus differ from traditional vocational assessments in both format and user experience. While traditional assessments often rely on paper-based or static digital questionnaires to measure interests, abilities or personality traits, GBAs incorporate interactive elements such as challenges, rewards and real-time feedback to assess similar constructs in a more engaging way. A key strength of GBAs is the potential they hold to enhance motivation, reduce test anxiety and simulate real-world decision-making, which may be particularly beneficial for younger or digitally native users.

However, Woźniak (2015) argues that playing a game is not equivalent to real-life situations even though the game tasks may reflect tasks that are critical for the job. The way players carry out their roles in the gamified assessment or GBA is merely an approximation of how an individual may perform in the professional environment (Woźniak, 2015). Another consideration surrounds the use of adding objects to the game environment, the interface or specific colours to increase engagement or authenticity as it may introduce biases into the assessment. These game elements among others used to engage users may undermine their validity or become too engaging therefore diminishing the purpose of the game (Kato & De Klerk, 2017, as cited in Stanciu & David, 2020). Fairness also comes into play as individuals with little or no gaming experience may view the use of gamification in a high-stakes environment as unfair or those that have extensive gaming experience may consider the game as poorly designed, executed or unfair too (Stanciu & David, 2020).

This is particularly pertinent in the South African context where GBAs hold promising potential but also present notable challenges. Given the country’s youth demographic, many of whom are familiar with mobile technology and digital platforms, GBAs could offer a more engaging and relatable approach to vocational assessment, particularly in settings where traditional methods fail to capture attention or motivation. The interactive and visually stimulating nature of GBAs may also help reduce test-related anxiety and promote deeper self-reflection among users. However, several contextual factors must be considered. Access to digital infrastructure remains uneven, especially in rural or under-resourced schools (Jansen, 2019; Van Dijk, 2020), which could limit the scalability and fairness of GBA implementation. In addition, language diversity, cultural relevance and digital literacy vary widely, raising concerns about inclusivity and validity (Foxcroft & De Kock, 2023; Laher, 2024).

Thus while gamification shows considerable potential, its use in vocational assessment must be approached with careful evaluation. Without a solid understanding of its effectiveness, target users and optimal application contexts, there is a risk that its adoption may be driven by trends rather than solid evidence. Conducting a systematic review offers a structured and transparent way to consolidate existing findings and evaluate the overall effectiveness of gamified vocational assessments. This review therefore seeks to explore how gamification has been implemented in vocational assessment and assesses its impact to ultimately consider its potential for use in the South African context. In this systematic review, we specifically explore: (1) How is gamification utilised in vocational assessment? (2) What are the benefits of gamification in vocational assessments? (3) What are the limitations of gamification in vocational assessments?

Methods

Research design

This study takes the form of a systematic review. The primary objective of a systematic review is to present a comprehensive and coherent synthesis of the available studies with regard to a specific research field to allow for a common and comprehensive understanding on the status of a given research area (Laher & Hassem, 2020). Given the lack of knowledge in the field of vocational assessment on the efficacy (or not) of gamification in vocational assessment, a systematic review is thus useful. The eight-step process suggested in Uman (2011) was followed in this review. Steps 1 to 4 required the researchers to formulate a review question and title, define the inclusion and exclusion criteria, develop a search strategy and locate and select the studies to be used. Step 5 expected the researchers to extract data and step 6 required that the quality of the studies be assessed thoroughly. During steps 7 and 8, the researchers needed to analyse and interpret the results as well as disseminate the findings.

Search strategy, data collection process and study selection

In order to attend to the comprehensive nature of a systematic review, a search strategy was required. The guidelines presented in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement were followed (Page et al., 2021). Four electronic databases, namely PsycINFO, SABINET, SACAT and EBSCOhost were chosen and searched. Within EBSCOhost, specific database categories were selected, including Academic Search Ultimate, Business Source Ultimate, Mental Measurements Yearbook, Computers and Applied Sciences Complete, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), Humanities International Complete, Open Dissertations and the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. These databases were selected for their ability to provide both international and African-focused literature relevant to the fields of technology and vocational assessment.

Following this, the keywords ‘Gamification careers’, ‘Gamification career assessment’, ‘Gamification vocational assessment’, ‘Game-based career assessment’ and ‘Gamified career assessment’ were used as search terms. These terms were selected for their breadth, allowing for the identification of a wide range of potentially eligible studies. Each search term was investigated using Boolean operators to refine and expand the search strategy. Specifically, the OR operator was used to include synonyms and related terms (e.g. ‘Gamified career assessment’ OR ‘Game-based career assessment’), ensuring a wider scope of retrieval. The AND operator was used to combine concepts and narrow the search to more relevant articles (e.g. ‘Gamification’ AND ‘Vocational assessment’). This method ensured that search results included studies that incorporated both concepts, while still allowing for a comprehensive collection of related literature. The search results for each term were saved to Zotero. In the case where prodigious amounts of articles were found, the results were manually examined until saturation was reached, that is, when there were no more articles based on title screening that addressed vocational assessment.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included in the sample, the following inclusion criteria had to be fulfilled: (1) Articles needed to be in English, (2) articles published between 2010 and 2024 were considered to ensure the most recent research was analysed and (3) the article had to address vocational assessments and some element of gamification in vocational assessment. Articles were excluded if the article had focused on online elements that were not gamified and/or if vocational assessments were not considered. More specifically, articles were excluded if vocational assessments and gamification were not discussed in conjunction or if gamification was discussed in any domain other than vocational assessments.

Data extraction and analysis

Once all searches were completed, the extracted articles were screened following three phases: Title screening, abstract screening and full-text screening using the PRISMA process. Studies were screened for eligibility by the authors and an independent reviewer where uncertainty existed. Any discrepancies were discussed between the authors and articles were only retained once these were resolved. Studies were retained only if the inclusion criteria were met. Following this, the quality of the articles were appraised using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tool). This included the 10 item checklist for qualitative studies and for quantitative studies; an adapted 12 item checklist created by Laher and Hassem (2020) was used. Mixed methods studies were evaluated using a combination of the two checklists to ensure that both elements of the study design were rigorous. All articles met the quality criteria. Articles were analysed using the coding reliability thematic analysis technique as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2022).

Ethical considerations

This study is a systematic review conducted on publicly accessible, peer-reviewed articles, as outlined in the Methods section and following the PRISMA guidelines. In accordance with the policies of the University of the Witwatersrand at the time of commencement, 04 March 2020, an ethics waiver was not required for this type of review research. This study was conducted using published studies. No data was collected from animals or human participants. Consequently, no ethics waiver clearance number is applicable. As this review involved no human participants or identifiable personal data, it posed no risk to individuals.

Results

A total of 836 articles were identified across the database searches that met the inclusion criteria (see Figure 1). After removing duplicate articles, 534 articles were retained and screened by title. Following the screening, 52 articles were retained and subjected to abstract screening. It is significant to note that during this screening process, any grey literature, specifically magazine articles, blog posts, research protocols and general online company posts and editorials were excluded. Other articles had been excluded if they had only focused on gamification or only on vocational assessment or if the focus was only on technology with no mention of assessment.

FIGURE 1: PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for gamification in vocational assessment review.

A total of 19 articles published between 2016 to 2024 were included for full-text screening. Of these, 11 (57.9%) articles were excluded as they either covered vocational assessment or gamification, not both, or they used gamification but in organisational settings like manufacturing or talent assessment, not vocational assessment. Moreover, two (10.5%) articles were excluded because of poor quality. Thus, six articles were retained for analysis as they addressed the use of gamification and/or artificial intelligence (AI) in the area of vocational assessment.

Table 1 provides a brief descriptive overview of the articles included in this study. Of the six articles, three were qualitative studies, two were quantitative studies and one was a mixed methods study. The sample sizes utilised in each study ranged from one participant (e.g. Alchin & McIlveen, 2017) to 2935 participants (e.g. Leung, 2022). The studies were conducted in a range of countries including South Africa (1), Ireland (2), Finland (1), Hong Kong (1) and Australia (1). Only three of the studies specified the age of their samples (Alchin & McIlveen, 2017; Leung, 2022; Scholtz et al., 2016), which ranged from 15 to 20 years old. Four of the studies included the gender identity of their sample, collectively comprising 1387 males (47.13%) and 1556 (52.87%) females.

As per the codebook reliability thematic analysis technique, three themes were identified across the papers, namely: (1) the use of gamification and/or technology and/or AI in vocational assessment, (2) the benefits of gamification and/or technology and/or AI in vocational assessment, and (3) the limitations of gamification and/or technology and/or AI in vocational assessment. These results are presented hereunder.

Theme 1: The use of gamification in vocational assessment

Gamification was primarily employed to serve two functions in vocational assessment, namely informing individuals about career choices and allowing individuals to make personalised career plans within a virtual environment. Scholtz et al. (2016) developed a gamified system at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU), South Africa, to help a group of 12 students build foundational knowledge about careers in computer science. They showed that the incorporation of design elements such as visual appeal and gamified elements can enhance one’s understanding and career-related knowledge. In particular, textual elements presented on computers were more effective than audio elements.

In addition to enhancing vocational knowledge, gamified systems have been utilised to empower students and promote engagement. Alchin and McIlveen (2017) introduced the U-Cube, a gamified career counselling tool modelled after the Rubik’s Cube, to stimulate career-related conversations and ideas. This tool was applied in a case study with a 15-year-old student referred for career counselling because of a lack of interest and motivation. This Rubik’s Cube-like device was designed with the intention to support clients to consider career influences in a safe environment rather than a list or survey. In this way, clients are able to hold a colourful toy that allows them to manipulate, fidget and rotate the cubes to different scenarios or words. The tactile experience of the U-Cube has been found to be attractive to clients as the tool eases the personal nature of discussion through probing words about careers therefore stimulating conversation. In this manner, the gamified U-Cube Assessment allows for individuals to construct their career influences prior to working with a career counsellor and post counselling.

McGuire et al. (2017) also investigated the role of gamification in fostering student engagement. Through interviews with eight students aged 19–25 years enrolled in Visual Arts and Design and Computer Games Development programmes, they explored how gamified approaches could enhance engagement. Students played the prototype gamified system as a means to understand the skills they need to pursue specific career opportunities and the job positions that become available as they earn each skill. Each level completed successfully equipped them with skills needed for various occupations and further increased their career prospects.

Building on this, McGuire et al. (2018) conducted a follow-up study, piloting a gamified system with avatar functionality to examine its influence on student motivation. This pilot study involved eight students from a computer games development course at the Institute of Technology, Carlow. Students were allowed to choose an avatar in navigating the career awareness system as a means to increase their enjoyment, interest and autonomous decision-making power.

More recently, Leung (2022) evaluated Infinity, a computer-assisted career guidance system (CACGS), to examine its impact on career adaptability, decision-making efficacy, and higher education aspirations among 2935 12th-grade students in Hong Kong (mean age = 17). In the Infinity career education curriculum, students identify specific actions to take in each lesson, such as creating a personalised action plan, while career teachers follow up on these actions in class or during individual career guidance sessions. This process is designed to strengthen career preparedness. A comparison between users (n = 844) and non-users (n = 2091) revealed the system’s effectiveness in supporting students’ career planning.

Westman et al. (2021) conducted a multi-method study to explore how AI could enhance career guidance services in higher education. Their research examined the perspectives of both students and staff, identifying key requirements for assessment practitioners to effectively adopt AI-based tools. The study also highlighted the opportunities that AI implementation could create for improving the accessibility and efficiency of career guidance services. Westman et al. (2021) found that students viewed AI as particularly useful for suggesting study programmes, thesis topics, work placements and job opportunities. In addition, students perceived AI as more efficient than vocational staff in identifying areas for development, allowing for earlier intervention and support. From a practitioner’s perspective, AI offers the potential to transform vocational assessment practices. Westman et al. (2021) reported that professionals believed AI could assist in recognising prior learning, predicting future competencies and automating routine administrative tasks.

Thus across the studies, gamified tools have demonstrated their potential to inform individuals about career options and facilitate decision-making within interactive and immersive environments. In South Africa, Scholtz et al. (2016) developed a gamified system to increase students’ foundational knowledge of computer science careers, highlighting how visual and interactive elements can boost understanding more effectively than passive formats. Similarly, the U-Cube, introduced by Alchin and McIlveen (2017), exemplifies how tactile gamification can stimulate meaningful career-related conversations, particularly with disengaged or demotivated youth. McGuire et al. (2017, 2018) further showed that gamified platforms with features like skill progression and avatar selection can foster motivation, autonomy and deeper engagement by aligning assessment activities with real-world career paths. In a large-scale study, Leung (2022) demonstrated that gamified systems such as Infinity can improve career adaptability and decision-making efficacy among adolescents, offering scalable support in educational settings. Furthermore, the integration of AI into gamified systems (Westman et al., 2021) demonstrates the potential to personalise vocational guidance, automate routine tasks and improve accessibility. Students viewed AI as effective for identifying academic and career opportunities, while practitioners saw value in its ability to streamline assessments and predict competency development (Westman et al., 2021). Together these studies indicate that gamification has the potential to provide dynamic, user-centred tools that support informed, autonomous and scalable vocational decision-making across diverse contexts. This can also be enhanced by the incorporation of AI.

Theme 2: Benefits of gamification in vocational assessment

Gamification is described as a tool for enhancing motivation, engagement, skill acquisition and career readiness by incorporating game-like elements that immerse users, foster autonomy and facilitate learning while preparing them for real-world challenges and adaptability. Across the papers, we found evidence for gamification assisting with improving motivation and engagement, contributing to skills development and improving career readiness and adaptability as described in the sub-themes hereunder.

Sub-theme 2.1: Enhanced motivation and engagement

Gamification served as a motivational tool for test-takers. For instance, Scholtz et al. (2016) reported heightened levels of engagement among students participating in gamified learning environments. A key appeal of gamification lies in its ability to immerse test-takers in imaginative scenarios. By incorporating game-like elements, individuals can adopt new identities, assume roles as diverse characters and perform tasks that might be unattainable in the real world – such as flying a dragon or leading a warrior tribe. Moreover, gamified systems often provide real-time feedback through mechanisms like trophies and progression to increasingly challenging levels (Scholtz et al., 2016). These virtual accomplishments can mirror real-world outcomes, such as career promotions, thereby also enhancing the motivational impact (McGuire et al., 2017).

Another aspect of motivation fostered by gamified assessments is the promotion of autonomy. McGuire et al. (2018) found that allowing users to customise avatars as part of the gamified process significantly enhanced their sense of autonomy, further contributing to increased engagement and satisfaction.

Sub-theme 2.2: Contribution to skill and knowledge acquisition

Two studies spoke to gamification enhancing test-takers’ skills and knowledge across various domains. Scholtz et al. (2016) incorporated visual and textual elements into a gamified assessment designed to expand students’ understanding of careers in computer sciences. Their findings demonstrated that these elements effectively facilitated knowledge acquisition in this domain. Alchin and McIlveen (2017) utilised the U-Cube, a gamified career counselling tool, to help a client identify their skills and strengths while fostering personal growth and self-awareness.

Sub-theme 2.3: Improved career readiness and adaptability

Users of the Infinity CACGS experienced fewer career decision-making difficulties, greater clarity in their choices and a stronger understanding of career planning compared to those who did not use the system (Leung, 2022). McGuire et al. (2017) demonstrated the value of their prototype gamified system in assisting students to develop networking and collaboration skills with the aim of preparing students for the interpersonal demands of their future careers.

Theme 3: Limitations of gamification and/or artificial intelligence in vocational assessment

While useful, gamification is not without limits. Gamified and AI-driven assessments raise several challenges in vocational assessment as was evident across the articles. These include ethical concerns about transparency and data privacy, heightened difficulty levels that may cause anxiety, the limitations of early-stage prototypes, interindividual variations in outcomes and the lack of personalisation and human centeredness. These are described in the sub-themes hereunder.

Sub-theme 3.1: Ethical concerns regarding test-taker awareness

Similar to traditional assessments, gamified assessments present ethical challenges that warrant careful consideration. One notable concern is the lack of test-taker awareness about the rules and mechanics of the gamified system. Often, participants are required to adapt and learn as the assessment progresses, which can lead to unintended consequences, like high levels of difficulty with certain tasks (McGuire et al., 2017; Scholtz et al., 2016). Westman et al. (2021) further emphasised the risks associated with AI usage, including the potential misuse of sensitive and private student information and concerns about the quality and reliability of data processed by AI systems. These issues underscore the importance of addressing ethical considerations to ensure that gamified and AI-driven assessments are both fair and secure.

Sub-theme 3.2: Assessment difficulty

Test-taker anxiety is a common challenge in traditional assessments, and this issue can be further intensified in gamified assessments, especially when the tasks exceed the test-taker’s abilities or gaming experience. Scholtz et al. (2016) observed that students faced significant difficulties with certain tasks in a gamified setting, while McGuire et al. (2017) reported that some students struggled to understand the purpose of the game itself.

Sub-theme 3.3: Caution against prototypes or premature assessments

Artificial intelligence tools, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), tend to be less effective during the initial stages of development and implementation compared to their performance after extensive training on large datasets. McGuire et al. (2017) found that students often struggled to understand the purpose of gamified assessments during their pilot testing. Westman et al. (2021) also found that gamified assessments require development that ‘in detecting silent signals, interpreting affective states, motivating and encouraging, creating a safe atmosphere as well as relaying empathy and hope’ (p. 49). These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that gamified assessments in vocational settings are thoroughly developed and rigorously tested before implementation, rather than relying on early-stage prototypes.

Sub-theme 3.4: Interindividual variations

The outcomes of gamified assessments can vary depending on the characteristics of the participants. Leung (2022) found that assessment outcomes, such as career adaptability resources, varied based on factors like participants’ gender and the type of school they attended. Furthermore, Alchin and McIlveen (2017) cautioned against the use of the U-Cube, stating that ‘its utility for different groups of clients is yet to be properly explored’ (p. 167).

Sub-theme 3.5: Lack of personalisation and human-centredness

Some students felt that the suggestions provided lacked relevance to their specific courses or did not consider factors such as their location or study schedule. In addition, some suggestions were deemed too advanced and not suitable for beginners, as they appeared to be geared towards later career stages. This feedback highlighted a need for a more personalised approach in the delivery of information (Westman et al., 2021). In order to engage individuals in career counselling, a practitioner is required to understand the process well and to utilise content that would be meaningful to the individual client (Alchin & McIlveen, 2017). As stated by Westman et al. (2021) ‘human touch’ is still needed to ‘detecting silent signals, interpreting affective states, motivating and encouraging, creating a safe atmosphere as well as relaying empathy and hope’ (p. 49).

Discussion

From the results, it is evident that gamification does have the potential to be effectively integrated into vocational assessment to enhance student engagement, knowledge and skill development. Through the use of gamified assessments, the career development process can be aided as these assessments assist individuals in exploring career options that are of relevance to them. It also introduces career literacy in order to initiate a thought process around careers and assists in supporting the development of a working alliance and playful exploration so that negative career thoughts can be altered (Sampson et al., 2004). This is considered important as negative career thoughts can impact readiness to engage in career problem solving and identify any career opportunities. By incorporating elements of play and interactive mechanics, gamified systems offer a transformative approach to traditional assessment practices, particularly for improving career-related knowledge, skills and adaptability.

Artificial intelligence has significantly enhanced the use of gamification in vocational assessment by enabling personalised, efficient and accessible career guidance. Artificial intelligence-powered tools, such as chatbots and adaptive systems, provide tailored feedback and recommendations for study programmes, job opportunities and skill development. For practitioners, AI automates tasks, predicts competencies and adapts to job market trends, transforming vocational assessment into a dynamic, data-driven process. Artificial intelligence also supports efficiency by automating routine tasks and predicting competencies, enabling assessors to focus on strategic decision-making. However, the success of such systems depends on rigorous testing to ensure their reliability and relevance.

The results of this study also highlight the challenges associated with using gamification for vocational assessments. These include ethical considerations, data privacy, anxiety and cultural differences, which must be addressed for effective implementation. Despite its benefits, gamification has limitations with one of the most significant being that of ethics with regards to data integrity and privacy. Artificial intelligence-driven gamified systems often require large amounts of personal data, raising questions about how this data is stored, used and protected. In addition, the mechanics of gamified systems may not always be transparent, leading to potential test-taker confusion or unintended consequences. Another limitation involves the potential for increased anxiety among participants. Tasks that are too difficult or exceed an individual’s gaming experience can lead to frustration, negatively impacting the assessment’s effectiveness. Similarly, excessive reliance on gamification elements like leaderboards may inadvertently create stressful environments rather than fostering motivation. Interindividual differences such as cultural background, digital literacy and access to technology also play a role in the efficacy of gamified assessments. Outcomes can vary widely among participants, emphasising the need for tailored approaches to accommodate diverse needs. The lack of human-centred interaction in gamified or AI-driven assessments limits their ability to address emotional and motivational aspects effectively. A ‘human touch’ remains crucial for fostering a supportive environment, suggesting that hybrid models combining technology with human facilitation may offer the most balanced approach.

It is important to reflect on what these results indicate for the practice of vocational assessment generally. It is clear from the discussion that there is evidence to support the efficacy of gamified vocational assessment tools. However, as yet there are no tools developed that can mimic the functions required of a comprehensive vocational assessment as provided by traditional assessment tools. From the descriptions provided in the results, it is clear that all the tools identified perform a limited set of functions and as such cannot offer the holistic guidance needed to facilitate vocational decision making. What is interesting across the systems in the study is the potential gamified assessments hold to dynamically assess an individual’s strengths, abilities and interests in a way that can enhance current traditional and narrative vocational assessment and counselling approaches. Specifically, the narrative approach to vocational assessment and counselling (Maree, 2020) focusses on agency, empowerment and self-belief and offers a dynamicity and personalisation over and above that provided by traditional vocational assessments. Gamification in vocational assessment has the potential to complement narrative methods by offering interactive experiences that build confidence, promote decision-making and foster a sense of achievement – values central to career development.

However, the fact that we were only able to locate six studies for this systematic review suggests that using gamification for vocational assessment is still in its infancy. Hypothetically there is much potential, but this requires more research. This is not to say that gamified tools do not exist. There is much evidence in education and in selection and recruitment for gamified assessments (Aouam et al., 2023; Thomas et al., 2022; Zeybek & Saygi, 2023). These would need to be tested within the vocational assessment context.

In the South African context, there has been research on gamified assessments. Lill et al. (2023) reported on the utility of Cognify, a GBA of cognitive ability. There was support for a general factor of cognitive ability across the entire sample but only partial metric and scalar invariance could be achieved with Lill et al. (2023) advising further research as well as a need to re-examine cut-off scores and create South African specific norms for the internationally developed game-based cognitive assessment.

Distiller (in press) reports on the locally developed Odyssey. The Odyssey assessment battery combines traditional psychometric methods with gamification to enhance engagement and accessibility while maintaining validity and reliability. It includes one fully-fledged GBA and traditional assessments enriched with gaming mechanics, thus ensuring compliance with South African labour legislation and suitability for candidates in emerging markets. Odyssey evaluates competencies like problem-solving, English literacy, numeric literacy, instruction assimilation and detail orientation. To ensure fairness, games are untimed to reduce test anxiety and use adaptive techniques to match candidates’ proficiency. Odyssey is designed for accessibility and operates in low-bandwidth environments. The games use simple mechanics and relatable contexts, resonating with South African candidates’ experiences. The instrument has good reliability and validity within the organisational sector in the South African context (Distiller, in press). However, while both these assessments hold potential for use in vocational assessment to assess constructs relevant to career decision-making, neither Cognify nor Odyssey have been used for vocational assessment.

Conclusion

Gamification, supported by AI and other technologies, offers immense potential for vocational assessment by enhancing engagement, skill acquisition and career readiness. However, its effectiveness hinges on ethical implementation, cultural sensitivity and balancing technology with human-centred approaches. Further while GBAs have the potential to support career development in South Africa by making assessments more accessible and engaging, their design and deployment must be carefully adapted to local realities. This includes ensuring offline accessibility, cultural sensitivity and rigorous validation within the South African population. By addressing these challenges, gamified assessments with or without the incorporation of AI can become pivotal tools for empowering diverse learners in dynamic career landscapes.

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Y.A. was responsible for the conceptualisation of the study and wrote the article until the methods section. She conducted the systematic review searches, completed the literature review and played a key role in editing and finalising the final dataset. S.L. was responsible for the conceptualisation of the study and contributed to writing the literature review, methods, data analysis and discussion section. S.P. was responsible for reviewing and editing the document. He also assisted with data analysis and write up.

The authors acknowledge with gratitude the financial support of the University of the Witwatersrand in covering the article processing charges for this manuscript. No additional funding was received.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder or agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References