Search Results
) does not include Internet gaming disorder (IGD) as an official diagnosis, it suggests diagnostic criteria for IGD in Section III (Emerging measures and models) and recommends further evaluation ( American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013; Griffiths
Commentary on: Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research
Problems with atheoretical and confirmatory research approaches in the study of behavioral addictions
. Kardefelt-Winther , D. ( 2014 c). Meeting the unique challenges of assessing Internet gaming disorder . Addiction , 109 , 1566 – 1570 . Kardefelt-Winther , D
Under the umbrella
Commentary on: Chaos and confusion in DSM-5 diagnosis of Internet Gaming Disorder: Issues, concerns, and recommendations for clarity in the field (Kuss et al.)
Internet Gaming Disorder and Other Internet-Related Disorders: A Matter of Confusion? Using computer games (online and offline) for recreational purposes has attracted scientific interest for almost decades. While for a long
) manifested by a loss of control, gaming despite harm to the individual, and conflicts stemming from gaming and functional impairment ( World Health Organization, 2019 ). GD, under its previous name of internet gaming disorder (IGD), was first included in 2013
Functional impairment matters in the screening and diagnosis of gaming disorder
Commentary on: Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal (Aarseth et al.)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes Internet gaming disorder (IGD) in the “Emerging Measures and Models” section and the beta draft of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes
) ( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ). Moreover, Recent inclusion of internet gaming disorder (IGD) in the eleventh revision of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) suggests the growing influence of BAs. A number of brain researches have
Stepping back to advance: Why IGD needs an intensified debate instead of a consensus
Commentary on: Chaos and confusion in DSM-5 diagnosis of Internet Gaming Disorder: Issues, concerns, and recommendations for clarity in the field (Kuss et al.)
In their insightful and important paper, Kuss, Griffiths, and Pontes ( 2017 ) describe the current situation of the DSM-5 diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder (IGD) as “chaos and confusion.” The authors identify several problems, focusing on
Introduction There is growing evidence sustaining that Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) constitutes a public health concern, and can have negative consequences (e.g., Rumpf et al., 2018 ). Despite the ongoing debate about the
video gaming. Raised concerns related to video gaming led to the inclusion in Section III of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for Internet gaming disorder (IGD; American Psychiatric
, overindulgence could lead to players developing Internet gaming disorder (IGD), “characterized by persistent gaming and functional impairment in multiple areas of life” ( King & Delfabbro, 2018 , p. 17). Several researchers have recently advocated IGD as an
