2022
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti; Vahlo, Jukka; Martončikc, Marcel; Munukka, Matti; Koskimaa, Raine; von Bonsdorff, Mikaela
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report Journal Article
In: Addiction Research & Theory, 2022, ISSN: 1606-6359.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Behavioral addiction, Games, Open science, Philosophy, Prevalence, Technology use
@article{Karhulahti2022c,
title = {Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report},
author = {Veli-Matti Karhulahti and Jukka Vahlo and Marcel Martončikc and Matti Munukka and Raine Koskimaa and Mikaela von Bonsdorff},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2022.2115033},
doi = {10.1080/16066359.2022.2115033},
issn = {1606-6359},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-05},
urldate = {2022-09-05},
journal = {Addiction Research & Theory},
abstract = {Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different ontol-ogies as reference systems, from self-assessed‘game addiction’to‘pathological gambling’(in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[DSM]-IV),‘internet gaming disorder’(in the thirdsection of the DSM-5) and most recently‘gaming disorder’(in theInternational Classification of Diseases[ICD]-11). Our goal was to investigate how screening instruments that derive from different ontologiesdiffer in identifying associated problem groups. By using four central screening instruments, each rep-resenting a different ontological basis, we hypothesized differences and similarities inprevalence,over-lap, andhealth. A nationally representative (N¼8217) sample of Finnish participants was collected. Thescreening instruments produced significantly different prevalence rates (from 0.4% to 6.9%) and thebinomial probabilities of group overlap ranged from poor (0.419) to good (0.919). Expectedly, the prob-lem groups had lower mental health than the general population, yet exploratory analyses impliedequivalent or significantlyhigherphysical health. We also found strong exploratory evidence for mis-chievous responding to complicate the measurement of gaming problems. Considering that severalmajor differences were confirmed between the four gaming problem constructs, we recommendresearchers to clearly define theirconstruct of interest, i.e. whether they are studying the ICD-11 basedofficial mental disorder, the DSM-5 proposed‘internet gaming disorder’, or other gaming problems—especially in future meta-analyses.},
keywords = {Behavioral addiction, Games, Open science, Philosophy, Prevalence, Technology use},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different ontol-ogies as reference systems, from self-assessed‘game addiction’to‘pathological gambling’(in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[DSM]-IV),‘internet gaming disorder’(in the thirdsection of the DSM-5) and most recently‘gaming disorder’(in theInternational Classification of Diseases[ICD]-11). Our goal was to investigate how screening instruments that derive from different ontologiesdiffer in identifying associated problem groups. By using four central screening instruments, each rep-resenting a different ontological basis, we hypothesized differences and similarities inprevalence,over-lap, andhealth. A nationally representative (N¼8217) sample of Finnish participants was collected. Thescreening instruments produced significantly different prevalence rates (from 0.4% to 6.9%) and thebinomial probabilities of group overlap ranged from poor (0.419) to good (0.919). Expectedly, the prob-lem groups had lower mental health than the general population, yet exploratory analyses impliedequivalent or significantlyhigherphysical health. We also found strong exploratory evidence for mis-chievous responding to complicate the measurement of gaming problems. Considering that severalmajor differences were confirmed between the four gaming problem constructs, we recommendresearchers to clearly define theirconstruct of interest, i.e. whether they are studying the ICD-11 basedofficial mental disorder, the DSM-5 proposed‘internet gaming disorder’, or other gaming problems—especially in future meta-analyses.