Cited by 129Impact of Technology on AdolescentsGambling Behavior and TreatmentsSexuality, Behavior, and Technology

Clinical validation of the C-VAT 2.0 assessment tool for gaming disorder: A sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria and the clinical characteristics of young patients with ‘video game addiction’

van Rooij, Antonius J., Schoenmakers, Tim M., van de Mheen, Dike·2017·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Aims Clinicians struggle with the identification of video gaming problems. To address this issue, a clinical assessment tool (C-VAT 2.0) was developed and tested in a clinical setting. The instrument allows exploration of the validity of the DSM-5 proposal for 'internet gaming disorder'.Method Using C-VAT 2.0, the current study provides a sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria in a clinical youth sample (13-23years old) in treatment for video gaming disorder (N=32). The study also explores the clinical characteristics of these patients.Results The patients were all male and reported spending extensive amounts of time on video games. At least half of the patients reported playing online games (n=15). Comorbid problems were common (n=22) and included (social) anxiety disorders, PDD NOS, ADHD/ADD, Parent-Child relationship problem, and various types of depressive mood problems. The sensitivity of the test was good: results further show that the C-VAT correctly identified 91% of the sample at the proposed cut-off score of at least 5 out of 9 of the criteria. As our study did not include healthy, extreme gamers, we could not assess the specificity of the tool: future research should make this a priority.Conclusion Using the proposed DSM-5 cut-off score, the C-VAT 2.0 shows preliminary validity in a sample of gamers in treatment for gaming disorder, but the discriminating value of the instrument should be studied further. In the meantime, it is crucial that therapists try to avoid false positives by using expert judgment of functional impairment in each case.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.10.018

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 129

Authors
van Rooij, A. J., Schoenmakers, T. M., & van de Mheen, D.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
64
Pages
269-274
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1917906618
Cited by
129
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
26.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Volksbond Foundation Rotterdam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Keywords
gaming addiction, internet gaming disorder, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, clinical assessment tools, diagnostic validity, sensitivity analysis, young adults, comorbidities, online games, functional disability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Behavior, Addictive, Video Games, Internet, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review