Cited by 369Impact of Technology on AdolescentsGambling Behavior and TreatmentsSexuality, Behavior, and Technology

Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review

Open access
King, Daniel L., Chamberlain, Samuel R., Carragher, Natacha, Billieux, Joel, Stein, Dan, Mueller, Kai, Potenza, Marc N., Rumpf, Hans Juergen +15 more·2020·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

The inclusion of gaming disorder (GD) as an official diagnosis in the ICD-11 was a significant milestone for the field. However, the optimal measurement approaches for GD are currently unclear. This comprehensive systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate all available English-language GD tools and their corresponding evidence. A search of PsychINFO, PsychArticles, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified 32 tools employed in 320 studies (N = 462,249 participants). The evaluation framework examined tools in relation to: (1) conceptual and practical considerations; (2) alignment with DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria; (3) type and quantity of studies and samples; and (4) psychometric properties. The evaluation showed that GD instrumentation has proliferated, with 2.5 tools, on average, published annually since 2013. Coverage of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria was inconsistent, especially for the criterion of continued use despite harm. Tools converge on the importance of screening for impaired control over gaming and functional impairment. Overall, no single tool was found to be clearly superior, but the AICA-Sgaming, GAS-7, IGDT-10, IGDS9-SF, and Lemmens IGD-9 scales had greater evidential support for their psychometric properties. The GD field would benefit from a standard international tool to identify gaming-related harms across the spectrum of maladaptive gaming behaviors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, D. L., Chamberlain, S. R., Carragher, N., Billieux, J., Stein, D., Mueller, K., Potenza, M. N., Rumpf, H. J., Saunders, J., Starcevic, V., Demetrovics, Z., Brand, M., Lee, H. K., Spada, M., Lindenberg, K., Wu, A. M. S., Lemenager, T., Pallesen, S., Achab, S., Kyrios, M., Higuchi, S., Fineberg, N. A., & Delfabbro, P. H.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
  • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Yale University (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Eötvös Loránd University (HU)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
  • Catholic University of Korea (KR)
  • London South Bank University (GB)
  • Heidelberg University of Education (DE)
  • University of Macau (MO)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center (JP)
  • University of Hertfordshire (GB)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
King, Daniel L.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
77
Pages
101831
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005982773
Cited by
369
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 33
FWCI
10.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Open (London South Bank University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Australian Research Council
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 disorder, screening tool, assessment instruments, psychometric properties, ICD-11, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, functional disability
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Behavior, Addictive, Video Games

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