Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32359228›Full record

SynthesisJournal of behavioral addictions2020

Face validity evaluation of screening tools for gaming disorder: Scope, language, and overpathologizing issues.

Daniel L King, Joel Billieux, Natacha Carragher, Paul H Delfabbro

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Gaming disorder: Neural mechanisms and ongoing debates.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Network analysis of additional clinical features of (Internet) gaming disorder.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel L King1 College of Education, Psychology, & Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide,Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1762-2581
Joel Billieux2 Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne,Switzerland.
Natacha Carragher4 Office of Medical Education, University of New South Wales (UNSW)Sydney,Australia.
Paul H Delfabbro6 School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimCritics of gaming disorder (GD; i.e., Internet gaming disorder in the DSM-5; Gaming disorder in the ICD-11) have expressed concerns about the potential risks of misclassification (e.g., false positives). An important consideration of relevance to this discussion is the extent to which commonly used screening instruments contain appropriate, sensible, and relevant items. The aim of this review was to evaluate the face validity of items within current tools for GD.

methodsA systematic review of databases identified 29 instruments. An item bank (n = 417 items) was independently evaluated by three professional raters (i.e., a senior academic in clinical psychology, a senior psychometrician, and an academic/clinical psychologist) according to guidelines for defining and measuring addiction and gaming disorder.

findingsEvaluation of the item bank identified issues related to: scope (i.e., "scope creep" or items of questionable relevance); language (i.e., confusing language, unusual wording or syntax); and overpathologizing (i.e., pathologizing typical and/or beneficial aspects or consequences of gaming). A total of 71 items across 23 tools had at least one face validity issue.

conclusionsMost items (83%) demonstrated satisfactory face validity and were consistent with either the DSM-5 or ICD-11 GD classification. However, many tests contain at least one item that may pathologize normal gaming behaviors. Such items refer to basic changes in mood when gaming, a desire to play or continue playing games, and experiencing immersion when gaming. This analysis highlights the challenges of screening for problematic behaviors that are thought to arise within the context of normal recreational activities.

Indexed as

Video GamesHumansInternet Addiction DisorderNeuropsychological TestsPsychometricsassessmentface validityInternet gaming disorderoverpathologizingscreening

Identifiers

PMID32359228
PMCPMC8935192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.