Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review.,Clinical Psychology Review

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Clin. Psychol. Rev. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review.
Clinical Psychology Review ( IF 13.7 ) Pub Date : 2020-02-11 , DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831
Daniel L King ₁ , Samuel R Chamberlain ₂ , Natacha Carragher ₃ , Joel Billieux ₄ , Dan Stein ₅ , Kai Mueller ₆ , Marc N Potenza ₇ , Hans Juergen Rumpf ₈ , John Saunders ₉ , Vladan Starcevic ₁₀ , Zsolt Demetrovics ₁₁ , Matthias Brand ₁₂ , Hae Kook Lee ₁₃ , Marcantonio Spada ₁₄ , Katajun Lindenberg ₁₅ , Anise M S Wu ₁₆ , Tagrid Lemenager ₁₇ , Ståle Pallesen ₁₈ , Sophia Achab ₁₉ , Mike Kyrios ₁ , Susumu Higuchi ₂₀ , Naomi A Fineberg ₂₁ , Paul H Delfabbro ₂₂

Affiliation

College of Education, Psychology, and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Office of Medical Education, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
SAMRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Dept of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Outpatient Clinic for Behavioral Addictions, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry, Department of Neuroscience, Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Discipline of Psychiatry, Nepean Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
General Psychology: Cognition and Center for Behavioral Addiction Research (CeBAR), University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Division of Psychology, School of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Institute for Psychology, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, China.
Department of Addictive Behavior and Addiction Medicine, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
WHO Collaborating Center for Training and Research in Mental Health, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Yokosuka, Japan.
University of Hertfordshire, University of Cambridge, UK.
School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

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.

中文翻译：

游戏障碍筛查和评估工具：全面的系统评价。

将游戏障碍（GD）作为ICD-11的官方诊断是该领域的重要里程碑。但是，目前尚不清楚GD的最佳测量方法。这项全面的系统评估旨在确定和评估所有可用的英语GD工具及其相应的证据。一个搜索的PsychINFO，PsychArticles，ScienceDirect，SCOPUS，科学网，和谷歌学术确定了320个研究采用32个工具（ñ = 462,249名参与者）。评估框架审查了有关以下方面的工具：（1）概念和实践考虑；（2）与DSM-5和ICD-11标准保持一致；（三）研究样本的种类和数量；（4）心理测量特性。评估显示，自2013年以来，GD仪器平均每年增加2.5种工具。DSM-5和ICD-11标准的覆盖范围不一致，尤其是尽管有危害却继续使用的标准。工具集中于筛选对游戏和功能受损的控制受损的重要性。总体而言，没有发现任何一种工具明显优于其他工具，但AICA-Sgaming，GAS-7，IGDT-10，IGDS9-SF和Lemmens IGD-9量表的心理计量学特性得到了更大的证据支持。

更新日期：2020-02-11

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

公开下载

阅读更多本刊最新论文