Ontological diversity in gaming disorder measurement

A nationally representative registered report

Bibliographic Data

ID15397907
AuthorsVeli-Matti Karhulahti (0000-0003-3709-5341, University of Jyväskylä, corresponding author), Jukka Vahlo (0000-0001-5835-5945, University of Jyväskylä), Marcel Martončik (0000-0003-4869-6900, University of Prešov), Matti Munukka (0000-0003-3101-466X, University of Jyväskylä), Raine Koskimaa (0000-0002-1492-4074, University of Jyväskylä), Mikaela B Von Bonsdorff (0000-0001-8530-5230, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland)
Year2022
Volume31
Issue3
Pages157-167
Publication date2022-09-05
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAddiction Research & Theory (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1476-7392 • E-ISSN: 1606-6359
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/16066359.2022.2115033
OpenAlexW4294636580
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited31

Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different ontologies as reference systems, from self-assessed ‘game addiction’ to ‘pathological gambling’ (in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM]-IV), ‘internet gaming disorder’ (in the third section of the DSM-5) and most recently ‘gaming disorder’ (in the International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-11). Our goal was to investigate how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. By using four central screening instruments, each representing a different ontological basis, we hypothesized differences and similarities in prevalence, overlap, and health. A nationally representative (N = 8217) sample of Finnish participants was collected. The screening instruments produced significantly different prevalence rates (from 0.4% to 6.9%) and the binomial probabilities of group overlap ranged from poor (0.419) to good (0.919). Expectedly, the problem groups had lower mental health than the general population, yet exploratory analyses implied equivalent or significantly higher physical health. We also found strong exploratory evidence for mischievous responding to complicate the measurement of gaming problems. Considering that several major differences were confirmed between the four gaming problem constructs, we recommend researchers to clearly define their construct of interest, i.e. whether they are studying the ICD-11 based official mental disorder, the DSM-5 proposed ‘internet gaming disorder’, or other gaming problems—especially in future meta-analyses

Diversity (politics · Environmental health · Psychiatry · Sociology · Child Development and Digital Technology · Clinical Psychology · Digital Mental Health Interventions · Impact of Technology on Adolescents · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access