Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41632108›Full record

ReviewJournal of behavioral addictions2026

Three key lessons learned from over a decade of gaming disorder assessment research.

Halley M Pontes, Mark D Griffiths

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Halley M Pontes1Birkbeck, University of London School of Psychological Sciences, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8020-7623
Mark D Griffiths2Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8880-6524

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the recognition of internet gaming disorder (IGD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and gaming disorder (GD) in the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases, significant progress has been made toward standardizing assessment practices. However, the present paper argues that three key lessons can be derived when considering the advancements in the field over the past decade. Firstly, rather than developing additional instruments, the field would greatly benefit from unifying existing assessment frameworks and establishing a clinical 'gold standard' based on current diagnostic criteria. Secondly, continued development of psychometric assessment alone is insufficient because the field urgently needs a robust theoretical framework that is able to distinguish between excessive and disordered gaming effectively. Without sound a theory, assessment and treatment practices risk ongoing conceptual drift and fragmentation. Finally, despite recent criticisms regarding the use of psychometric instruments and self-report measures, these methodologies remain necessary. While more objective gaming data can be valuable, they also present with important limitations that need to be fully considered. A potential way forward for an effective assessment approach may involve combining both psychometrically robust self-report data with objective data. However, future research must still ensure that assessment instruments undergo rigorous psychometric validation beyond reliability and validity alone. The paper concludes that instead of prioritizing the development of new assessment tools, the field would benefit more from strengthening its theoretical foundation and rigorously evaluating existing diagnostic frameworks and psychometric instruments.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveInternet Addiction DisorderPsychometricsVideo GamesDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHumansReproducibility of Resultsgaming addictiongaming disordergaming disorder assessmentpsychometric testing

Identifiers

PMID41632108
PMCPMC13132354

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.