In recent years, the conversation around Gaming Disorder has gained significant traction, especially as more people recognise the impact of excessive gaming on mental health. In our latest study, we took a closer look at two of the most widely used assessment tools for GD: the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF) and the Gaming Disorder Test (GDT). Our goal was to evaluate how well these tools measure disordered gaming and what that means for individuals and clinicians alike.

What is Gaming Disorder?

Gaming Disorder is a condition recognized in the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). It involves a pattern of gaming behaviour where a person struggles to control their gaming habits, prioritises gaming over other important activities and interests, and continues to play even when it leads to negative effects in their life. Essentially, it means that gaming becomes more important than other aspects of daily living, which can harm a person’s wellbeing.

About our study

For this study, we gathered a diverse group of 605 participants, all of whom were Spanish-speaking individuals aged between 16 and 73 years who played video games at least once a week. Through an online survey, we assessed the reliability and effectiveness of the IGDS9-SF and GDT in identifying symptoms of disordered gaming.

Using advanced statistical methods, we analysed the data to determine whether these two scales accurately measure a single underlying trait (i.e., disordered gaming) and how well they can distinguish between different levels of severity. Accurately measuring Gaming Disorder is crucial for identifying and treating individuals who may be struggling with excessive gaming and understanding the severity of their issues.

Our key findings

One of our most significant findings was that both the IGDS9-SF and GDT are unidimensional. This means that each scale effectively measures one core aspect of Gaming Disorder. The results showed that the items (which represent the unique symptoms of Gaming Disorder) on both scales work well together to reflect the same underlying issue.

Moreover, both scales demonstrated high reliability, which means that they consistently provide accurate measurements of Gaming Disorder symptoms.

We also explored how well the items of each scale can differentiate between varying levels of Gaming Disorder. We found that the GDT performed particularly well, achieving a strong scalability coefficient, which suggests that its items are effective at distinguishing between individuals with different levels of gaming issues.

We also found a clear hierarchy of item difficulty within both scales. For instance, in the IGDS9-SF, the most challenging item related to the experience of negative consequences of gaming, while the easiest item was about escapism, which means that when assessing Gaming Disorder, it is important to understand that the potential negative consequences resulting from excessive gaming is a much better indicator of Gaming Disorder than playing video games excessively to escape real-life problems.

In the GDT, the most difficult item involved experiencing significant life problems due to gaming, which is highly consistent with the findings of the IGDS9-SF. Interestingly, the easiest item was related to giving increased priority to gaming, which is an important sign of Gaming Disorder but certainly not as critical compared to the detrimental consequences excessive gaming can cause.

We also found that withdrawal symptoms (in IGDS9-SF) and experience of significant problems in life (in GDT) were the most discriminative items. This finding suggests that these two symptoms are particularly effective in differentiating individuals experiencing Gaming Disorder.

Implications of our findings

The implications of our study are important for both individuals and mental health professionals. Firstly, it is important to pay attention to more critical symptoms as these may require a greater level of intervention. One of the critical symptoms we identified relates to the negative impact of excessive gaming on a person’s life (e.g., missing real-life opportunities, skipping school, missing work, etc).

Secondly, the most discriminative items were: withdrawal symptoms in the IGDS9-SF and the experience of significant life problems in the GDT. These two symptoms should be prioritised during assessments and clinicians should pay close attention to them as they appear to indicate a more severe form of Gaming Disorder.

Furthermore, our findings suggest that the GDT may be slightly more effective than the IGDS9-SF in distinguishing between individuals with high and low levels of Gaming Disorder, a finding that can help guide health practitioners in selecting the most appropriate assessment tool for their clinical work with clients struggling with Gaming Disorder, ultimately leading to better targeted interventions.

In conclusion, our study supports the psychometric robustness of both the IGDS9-SF and GDT, confirming their utility in both research and clinical settings for assessing Gaming Disorder. By utilising these tools, researchers and clinicians can better identify individuals at risk for Gaming Disorder and implement more focussed interventions aimed at treating this condition and promoting healthier gaming behaviours.

As the conversation around gaming and mental health continues to evolve, our findings contribute to a growing body of evidence that can help shape effective strategies for prevention and intervention in the realm of Gaming Disorder.

Reference

Maldonado-Murciano, L., Pontes, H. M., Barrios, M., Gómez-Benito, J., & Guilera, G. (2024). Mokken scale analysis of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form and the Gaming Disorder Test. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 100567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100567

Stay tuned and follow me on Mastodon and X (formerly Twitter) for real-time updates on what’s happening next!