Skip Page Header

Home > Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: an international Delphi study.

Castro-Calvo, Jesús and King, Daniel L and Stein, Dan J and Brand, Matthias and Carmi, Lior and Chamberlain, Samuel R and Demetrovics, Zsolt and Fineberg, Naomi A and Rumpf, Hans-Jürgen and Yücel, Murat and Achab, Sophia and Ambekar, Atul and Bahar, Norharlina and Blaszczynski, Alexander and Bowden-Jones, Henrietta and Carbonell, Xavier and Chan, Elda Mei Lo and Ko, Chih-Hung and de Timary, Philippe and Dufour, Magali and Grall-Bronnec, Marie and Lee, Hae Kook and Higuchi, Susumu and Jimenez-Murcia, Susana and Király, Orsolya and Kuss, Daria J and Long, Jiang and Müller, Astrid and Pallanti, Stefano and Potenza, Marc N and Rahimi-Movaghar, Afarin and Saunders, John B and Schimmenti, Adriano and Lee, Seung-Yup and Siste, Kristiana and Spritzer, Daniel T and Starcevic, Vladan and Weinstein, Aviv M and Wölfling, Klaus and Billieux, Joël (2021) Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: an international Delphi study. Addiction , Early online . doi: 10.1111/add.15411.

External website: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.15...

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Following the recognition of 'internet gaming disorder' (IGD) as a condition requiring further study by the DSM-5, 'gaming disorder' (GD) was officially included as a diagnostic entity by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). However, the proposed diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder remain the subject of debate, and there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the views of different groups of experts. To achieve a more systematic agreement on this new disorder, this study employed the Delphi expert consensus method to obtain expert agreement on the diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value of the DSM-5 criteria and ICD-11 clinical guidelines for GD.

METHODS: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved.

RESULTS: For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM-5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non-problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non-gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value.

CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey provides a foundation for identifying the most diagnostically valid and clinically useful criteria for GD. There was expert agreement that some DSM-5 criteria were not clinically relevant and may pathologize non-problematic patterns of gaming, whereas ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines are likely to diagnose GD adequately and avoid pathologizing.


Item Type
Article
Publication Type
International, Open Access, Article
Drug Type
Behavioural addiction
Intervention Type
Screening / Assessment
Date
15 January 2021
Identification #
doi: 10.1111/add.15411
Volume
Early online
EndNote

Repository Staff Only: item control page