Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :
- Author or Editor: C. Thomas x
- Behavioral Sciences x
- Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Background and aims
Few studies have investigated the association between problem gambling (PG) and violence extending into the family beyond intimate partners. This study aimed to explore the association between PG and family violence (FV) in a population-representative sample. It was hypothesized that: (a) PG would be positively associated with FV, even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and comorbidities and (b) these relationships would be significantly exacerbated by substance use and psychological distress. A secondary aim was to explore whether gender moderated these relationships.
Methods
Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted with a population-representative sample of 4,153 Australian adults.
Results
Moderate-risk (MR)/problem gamblers had a 2.73-fold increase in the odds of experiencing FV victimization (21.3%; 95% CI: 13.1–29.4) relative to non-problem gamblers (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.5–10.4). They also had a 2.56-fold increase in the odds of experiencing FV perpetration (19.7%; 95% CI: 11.8–27.7) relative to non-problem gamblers (9.0%; 95% CI: 8.0–10.0). Low-risk gamblers also had over a twofold increase in the odds of experiencing FV victimization (20.0%; 95% CI: 14.0–26.0) and perpetration (19.3%; 95% CI: 13.5–25.1). These relationships remained robust for low-risk gamblers, but were attenuated for MR/problem gamblers, after adjustment for substance use and psychological distress. MR/problem gamblers had a greater probability of FV victimization, if they reported hazardous alcohol use; and low-risk gamblers had a greater probability of FV perpetration if they were female.
Discussion and conclusion
These findings provide further support for routine screening, highlight the need for prevention and intervention programs, and suggest that reducing alcohol use may be important in these efforts.
Abstract
Background
Gaming Disorder was included as an addictive disorder in the latest version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), published in 2022. The present study aimed to develop a screening tool for Gaming Disorder, the Gaming Disorder Identification Test (GADIT), based on the four ICD-11 diagnostic criteria: impaired control, increasing priority, continued gaming despite harm, and functional impairment.
Method
We reviewed 297 questionnaire items from 48 existing gaming addiction scales and selected 68 items based on content validity. Two datasets were collected: 1) an online panel (N = 803) from Australia, United States, United Kingdom and Canada, split into a development set (N = 589) and a validation dataset (N = 214); and 2) a university sample (N = 408) from Australia. Item response theory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to select eight items to form the GADIT. Validity was established by regressing the GADIT against known correlates of Gaming Disorder.
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses of the GADIT showed good model fit (RMSEA=<0.001–0.108; CFI = 0.98–1.00), and internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alphas = 0.77–0.92). GADIT scores were strongly associated with the Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10), and significantly associated with gaming intensity, eye fatigue, hand pain, wrist pain, back or neck pain, and excessive in-game purchases, in both the validation and the university sample datasets.
Conclusion
The GADIT has strong psychometric properties in two independent samples from four English-speaking countries collected through different channels, and shown validity against existing scales and variables that are associated with Gaming Disorder. A cut-off of 5 is tentatively recommended for screening for Gaming Disorder.
Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: The need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective
Commentary on: A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution (van Rooij et al., 2018)
The proposed introduction of gaming disorder (GD) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to a lively debate over the past year. Besides the broad support for the decision in the academic press, a recent publication by van Rooij et al. (2018) repeated the criticism raised against the inclusion of GD in ICD-11 by Aarseth et al. (2017). We argue that this group of researchers fails to recognize the clinical and public health considerations, which support the WHO perspective. It is important to recognize a range of biases that may influence this debate; in particular, the gaming industry may wish to diminish its responsibility by claiming that GD is not a public health problem, a position which maybe supported by arguments from scholars based in media psychology, computer games research, communication science, and related disciplines. However, just as with any other disease or disorder in the ICD-11, the decision whether or not to include GD is based on clinical evidence and public health needs. Therefore, we reiterate our conclusion that including GD reflects the essence of the ICD and will facilitate treatment and prevention for those who need it.
