Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review

Daniel L King; Samuel R Chamberlain; Natacha Carragher; Joel Billieux; Dan Stein; Kai Mueller; Marc N Potenza; Hans Juergen Rumpf; John Saunders; Vladan Starcevic; Zsolt Demetrovics; Matthias Brand; Hae Kook Lee; Marcantonio Spada; Katajun Lindenberg; Anise M S Wu; Tagrid Lemenager; Ståle Pallesen; Sophia Achab; Mike Kyrios; Susumu Higuchi; Naomi A Fineberg; Paul H Delfabbro

doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831

Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review

Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Apr:77:101831. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831. Epub 2020 Feb 11.

Authors

Daniel L King¹, Samuel R Chamberlain², Natacha Carragher³, Joel Billieux⁴, Dan Stein⁵, Kai Mueller⁶, Marc N Potenza⁷, Hans Juergen Rumpf⁸, John Saunders⁹, Vladan Starcevic¹⁰, Zsolt Demetrovics¹¹, Matthias Brand¹², Hae Kook Lee¹³, Marcantonio Spada¹⁴, Katajun Lindenberg¹⁵, Anise M S Wu¹⁶, Tagrid Lemenager¹⁷, Ståle Pallesen¹⁸, Sophia Achab¹⁹, Mike Kyrios²⁰, Susumu Higuchi²¹, Naomi A Fineberg²², Paul H Delfabbro²³

Affiliations

¹ College of Education, Psychology, and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: daniel.king@flinders.edu.au.
² Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
³ Office of Medical Education, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
⁴ Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
⁵ SAMRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Dept of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
⁶ Outpatient Clinic for Behavioral Addictions, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.
⁷ Department of Psychiatry, Department of Neuroscience, Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
⁸ Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
⁹ Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
¹⁰ Discipline of Psychiatry, Nepean Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
¹¹ Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
¹² General Psychology: Cognition and Center for Behavioral Addiction Research (CeBAR), University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
¹³ Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
¹⁴ Division of Psychology, School of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK.
¹⁵ Institute for Psychology, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany.
¹⁶ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, China.
¹⁷ Department of Addictive Behavior and Addiction Medicine, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
¹⁸ Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
¹⁹ WHO Collaborating Center for Training and Research in Mental Health, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
²⁰ College of Education, Psychology, and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
²¹ National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Yokosuka, Japan.
²² University of Hertfordshire, University of Cambridge, UK.
²³ School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

PMID: 32143109
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Assessment; Behavioral addiction; DSM-5; Gaming disorder; ICD-11; Screening.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Behavior, Addictive / diagnosis*
Humans
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales* / standards
Psychometrics* / standards
Video Games*