Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKing, Daniel L.
dc.contributor.authorChamberlain, Samuel R.
dc.contributor.authorCarragher, Natacha
dc.contributor.authorBillieux, Joël
dc.contributor.authorStein, Dan
dc.contributor.authorMueller, Kai
dc.contributor.authorPotenza, Marc N.
dc.contributor.authorRumpf, Hans-Jürgen
dc.contributor.authorSaunders, John
dc.contributor.authorStarcevic, Vladan
dc.contributor.authorDemetrovics, Zsolt
dc.contributor.authorBrand, Matthias
dc.contributor.authorLee, Hae Kook
dc.contributor.authorSpada, Marcantonio M.
dc.contributor.authorLindenberg, Katajun
dc.contributor.authorWu, Anise M.S.
dc.contributor.authorLemenager, Tagrid
dc.contributor.authorPallesen, Ståle
dc.contributor.authorAchab, Sophia
dc.contributor.authorKyrios, Mike
dc.contributor.authorHiguchi, Susumu
dc.contributor.authorFineberg, Naomi A.
dc.contributor.authorDelfabbro, Paul H.
dc.PublishedClinical Psychology Review. 2020, 77 1-20.
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.titleScreening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 The Authorsen_US
dc.source.journalClinical Psychology Reviewen_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Psychology Review. 2020, 77, 101831en_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal