Premium
Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: an international Delphi study
Author(s) -
CastroCalvo Jesús,
King Daniel L.,
Stein Dan J.,
Brand Matthias,
Carmi Lior,
Chamberlain Samuel R.,
Demetrovics Zsolt,
Fineberg Naomi A.,
Rumpf HansJürgen,
Yücel Murat,
Achab Sophia,
Ambekar Atul,
Bahar Norharlina,
Blaszczynski Alexander,
BowdenJones Henrietta,
Carbonell Xavier,
Chan Elda Mei Lo,
Ko ChihHung,
Timary Philippe,
Dufour Magali,
GrallBronnec Marie,
Lee Hae Kook,
Higuchi Susumu,
JimenezMurcia Susana,
Király Orsolya,
Kuss Daria J.,
Long Jiang,
Müller Astrid,
Pallanti Stefano,
Potenza Marc N.,
RahimiMovaghar Afarin,
Saunders John B.,
Schimmenti Adriano,
Lee SeungYup,
Siste Kristiana,
Spritzer Daniel T.,
Starcevic Vladan,
Weinstein Aviv M.,
Wölfling Klaus,
Billieux Joël
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/add.15411
Subject(s) - delphi method , dsm 5 , delphi , psychology , clinical psychology , medicine , psychiatry , computer science , artificial intelligence , operating system
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.