An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM ‐5 approach
Abstract
Aims For the first time, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) introduces non-substance addictions as psychiatric diagnoses. The aims of this paper are to (i) present the main controversies surrounding the decision to include internet gaming disorder, but not internet addiction more globally, as a non-substance addiction in the research appendix of the DSM-5, and (ii) discuss the meaning behind the DSM-5 criteria for internet gaming disorder. The paper also proposes a common method for assessing internet gaming disorder. Although the need for common diagnostic criteria is not debated, the existence of multiple instruments reflect the divergence of opinions in the field regarding how best to diagnose this condition. Methods We convened international experts from European, North and South American, Asian and Australasian countries to discuss and achieve consensus about assessing internet gaming disorder as defined within DSM-5. Results We describe the intended meaning behind each of the nine DSM-5 criteria for internet gaming disorder and present a single item that best reflects each criterion, translated into the 10 main languages of countries in which research on this condition has been conducted. Conclusions Using results from this cross-cultural collaboration, we outline important research directions for understanding and assessing internet gaming disorder. As this field moves forward, it is critical that researchers and clinicians around the wo…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 919
- Authors
- Petry, N. M., Rehbein, F., Gentile, D. A., Lemmens, J. S., Rumpf, H., Mößle, T., Bischof, G., Tao, R., Fung, D. S. S., Borges, G., Auriacombe, M., González Ibáñez, A., Tam, P., & O'Brien, C. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (DE)
- Iowa State University (US)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Lübeck (DE)
- The Military General Hospital of Beijing PLA (CN)
- Institute of Mental Health (SG)
- Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (MX)
- Université de Bordeaux (FR)
- University of Connecticut School of Medicine Farmington CT USA
- Network for Internet Investigation and Research Australia Sydney NSW Australia
- University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA
- Corresponding author
- Petry, Nancy M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-01-23
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1399-1406
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- OpenAlex
- W2117085868
- Cited by
- 919
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 115 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 38
- FWCI
- 270.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Addiction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R01-DA021567, P50-DA09241, P60-AA03510)
- 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
- internet gaming disorder, DSM-5, diagnostic criteria, internet addiction, behavioral addiction, psychiatric diagnosis, assessment instruments, expert consensus
- MeSH terms
- Asia, Europe, Humans, North America, South America, Behavior, Addictive, Video Games, Internet, Consensus, Internationality, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Australasia
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