Cited by 614Impact of Technology on AdolescentsSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyGambling Behavior and Treatments

Proposed diagnostic criteria for internet addiction

Tao, Ran, Huang, Xiuqin, Wang, Jinan, Zhang, Huimin, Zhang, Ying, Li, Mengchen·2010·Addiction

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop diagnostic criteria for internet addiction disorder (IAD) and to evaluate the validity of our proposed diagnostic criteria for discriminating non-dependent from dependent internet use in the general population. METHODS: This study was conducted in three stages: the developmental stage (110 subjects in the survey group; 408 subjects in the training group), where items of the proposed diagnostic criteria were developed and tested; the validation stage (n = 405), where the proposed criteria were evaluated for criterion-related validity; and the clinical stage (n = 150), where the criteria and the global clinical impression of IAD were evaluated by more than one psychiatrist to determine inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: The proposed internet addiction diagnostic criteria consisted of symptom criterion (seven clinical symptoms of IAD), clinically significant impairment criterion (functional and psychosocial impairments), course criterion (duration of addiction lasting at least 3 months, with at least 6 hours of non-essential internet usage per day) and exclusion criterion (exclusion of dependency attributed to psychotic disorders). A diagnostic score of 2 + 1, where the first two symptoms (preoccupation and withdrawal symptoms) and at least one of the five other symptoms (tolerance, lack of control, continued excessive use despite knowledge of negative effects/affects, loss of interests excluding internet, and use of the internet to escape or relieve a dysphoric mood) was established. Inter-rater reliability was 98%. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the proposed diagnostic criteria may be useful for the standardization of diagnostic criteria for IAD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02828.x

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tao, R., Huang, X., Wang, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., & Li, M.
Affiliations
The Military General Hospital of Beijing PLA (CN)
Corresponding author
Tao, Ran
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-05
Volume
105
Issue
3
Pages
556-564
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2041328962
Cited by
614
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 29
FWCI
76.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
internet addiction, diagnostic criteria, preoccupation, withdrawal symptoms, tolerance, lack of control, excessive internet use, psychosocial impairment, inter-rater reliability, criterion validity, diagnostic score
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Behavior, Addictive, Internet, 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