Stepping up the game

Abstract

substance use disorders [3], high rates of comorbidity [15,16] and a lag in the evaluation of treatments relative to practice [17].The proposed criteria will require refinement Petry and colleagues [3] note that the criteria should be subject to systematic investigation and empirical validation. Future research may indicate that the diagnostic threshold fails to differentiate non-dependent from dependent use [16], that some criteria do not add to diagnostic accuracy [18] or that some criteria are more central to diagnosis than others [18]. Like gambling disorder, there may also be a need for exclusion criteria and specifiers relating to course, remission and current severity. A unified assessment approach is requiredRather than developing additional measurement instruments, the validity and reliability of existing measures must be assessed against the proposed criteria [19], with a view to adopting a unified assessment approach [11]. ConclusionAlthough including IGD in the DSM-5 and the subsequent development of diagnostic criteria will be well received by researchers and clinicians, the criteria are in need of widespread empirical testing and validation. Time will tell whether this condition has the requisite features for inclusion as a behavioural addiction in subsequent editions of the DSM. Declaration of interests None.Keywords Addiction, behavioural addiction, DSM-5, internet addiction, internet gaming disorder, video gaming.

Moving internet gaming disorder forward: A reply

“…For example, specifying ‘excessive’ when describing gaming that leads to adverse consequences may not be necessary when extreme use is implied, and ‘excessive’ is a somewhat complex word that increases the reading level substantially. We agree with Goudriaan that assessing frequency and intensity of gaming is important, but similarly to the diagnosis of alcohol use disorders, frequency and quantity may be more useful in the context of brief screening tools than diagnosis, because time spent gaming is influenced by multiple factors (e.g. free time) that may not relate directly to problems that arise from gaming.…”

“…All commentators concurred that conceptual confusion has hindered study of this condition. Unfortunately, the name ‘internet gaming disorder’ introduced into the DSM‐5 appears to hold potential for creating further misunderstandings.…”

How Has Internet Addiction Research Evolved Since the Advent of Internet Gaming Disorder? An Overview of Cyberaddictions from a Psychological Perspective

“…Petry and colleagues [5••, 6••] established guidelines based on nine potential criteria for IGD, as well as their underlying significance; offered a common method to assess the condition via these nine This article is part of the Topical Collection on Technology and Addiction * Olatz Lopez-Fernandez olatz.lopez@uclouvain.be; lopez.olatz@gmail.com items, with a conservative cutoff point of five; and translated the guidelines into ten languages to facilitate crosscultural studies. Researchers in the field of behavioral addictions immediately expressed their opinion [7][8][9][10][11][12], with their main concerns about IGD focused on the proposed criteria (e.g., on symptomatology such as preoccupation or withdrawal, the frequency or intensity of gaming, or the wording of items). Thus, a new debate in the field of IA arose.…”

“…Thus, a new debate in the field of IA arose. On one hand, the dissemination of IGD criteria in several languages, which has been valuable in promoting the global study of this phenomenon [7], and the attempts to generate more consistency in IGD research generally are considered achievements [8]. On the other hand, however, some experts argue that the new DSM-5 criteria add confusion rather than consensus [9][10][11][12] and do not help in overcoming the difficulties related to the definition and recognition of this disorder.…”

“…Griffiths and Szabo [14•] highlighted one of the longstanding debates in the IA field-whether the addiction is to the Internet in general (i.e., as a medium) or to a specific online activity conducted through it (i.e., content and applications)-suggesting that IA appears to be a specific behavior in the online environment. Similarly, Petry et al [15•], in observing the conceptual confusion hindering the study of IGD [7][8][9][10], stated that the medium through which one accesses games is not important for diagnosis and included offline games with those associated with online or Internet access (clearly distinguishing it from gambling disorder). Therefore, the term technologic addictions [2•] (commonly used in the English literature) or cyberaddictive spectrum [16] (used chiefly in the French literature) may be understood as covering the original term Internet addiction, addressing both addiction to specific technologies (e.g., smartphones) and to addictive behavior carried out through genuinely online activities and applications (e.g., social networking and Facebook).…”