Abstract
There is considerable debate regarding the relationship between excessive gaming and mental health problems. Whilst the diagnostic classification of “gaming disorder” has now been included in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the APA decided not to include this diagnosis in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) because the literature “suffers from a lack of a standard definition from which to derive prevalence data” (APA 2013, p. 796). Furthermore, screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals.
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems.
Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems.
Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 100004 |
| Journal | Peer Community In Registered Reports |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 17 Jan 2022 |