TY - JOUR
T1 - Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder
T2 - A comprehensive systematic review
AU - King, Daniel L.
AU - Chamberlain, Samuel R.
AU - Carragher, Natacha
AU - Billieux, Joel
AU - Stein, Dan
AU - Mueller, Kai
AU - Potenza, Marc N.
AU - Rumpf, Hans Juergen
AU - Saunders, John
AU - Starcevic, Vladan
AU - Demetrovics, Zsolt
AU - Brand, Matthias
AU - Lee, Hae Kook
AU - Spada, Marcantonio
AU - Lindenberg, Katajun
AU - Wu, Anise M.S.
AU - Lemenager, Tagrid
AU - Pallesen, Ståle
AU - Achab, Sophia
AU - Kyrios, Mike
AU - Higuchi, Susumu
AU - Fineberg, Naomi A.
AU - Delfabbro, Paul H.
N1 - This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - The inclusion of gaming disorder (GD) as an official diagnosis in the ICD-11 was a significant milestone for the field. However, the optimal measurement approaches for GD are currently unclear. This comprehensive systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate all available English-language GD tools and their corresponding evidence. A search of PsychINFO, PsychArticles, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified 32 tools employed in 320 studies (N = 462,249 participants). The evaluation framework examined tools in relation to: (1) conceptual and practical considerations; (2) alignment with DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria; (3) type and quantity of studies and samples; and (4) psychometric properties. The evaluation showed that GD instrumentation has proliferated, with 2.5 tools, on average, published annually since 2013. Coverage of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria was inconsistent, especially for the criterion of continued use despite harm. Tools converge on the importance of screening for impaired control over gaming and functional impairment. Overall, no single tool was found to be clearly superior, but the AICA-Sgaming, GAS-7, IGDT-10, IGDS9-SF, and Lemmens IGD-9 scales had greater evidential support for their psychometric properties. The GD field would benefit from a standard international tool to identify gaming-related harms across the spectrum of maladaptive gaming behaviors.
AB - The inclusion of gaming disorder (GD) as an official diagnosis in the ICD-11 was a significant milestone for the field. However, the optimal measurement approaches for GD are currently unclear. This comprehensive systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate all available English-language GD tools and their corresponding evidence. A search of PsychINFO, PsychArticles, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified 32 tools employed in 320 studies (N = 462,249 participants). The evaluation framework examined tools in relation to: (1) conceptual and practical considerations; (2) alignment with DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria; (3) type and quantity of studies and samples; and (4) psychometric properties. The evaluation showed that GD instrumentation has proliferated, with 2.5 tools, on average, published annually since 2013. Coverage of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria was inconsistent, especially for the criterion of continued use despite harm. Tools converge on the importance of screening for impaired control over gaming and functional impairment. Overall, no single tool was found to be clearly superior, but the AICA-Sgaming, GAS-7, IGDT-10, IGDS9-SF, and Lemmens IGD-9 scales had greater evidential support for their psychometric properties. The GD field would benefit from a standard international tool to identify gaming-related harms across the spectrum of maladaptive gaming behaviors.
KW - Assessment
KW - Behavioral addiction
KW - DSM-5
KW - Gaming disorder
KW - ICD-11
KW - Screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85080107889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/ARC/DE170101198
U2 - 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831
DO - 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32143109
AN - SCOPUS:85080107889
SN - 0272-7358
VL - 77
JO - Clinical Psychology Review
JF - Clinical Psychology Review
M1 - 101831
ER -
