Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing internet gaming disorder: a critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014)

• Published in: Addiction (Abingdon, England) Vol. 111; no. 1; pp. 167 - 175
• Main Authors: Griffiths, Mark D., van Rooij, Antonius J., Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel, Starcevic, Vladan, Király, Orsolya, Pallesen, Ståle, Müller, Kai, Dreier, Michael, Carras, Michelle, Prause, Nicole, King, Daniel L., Aboujaoude, Elias, Kuss, Daria J., Pontes, Halley M., Lopez Fernandez, Olatz, Nagygyorgy, Katalin, Achab, Sophia, Billieux, Joël, Quandt, Thorsten, Carbonell, Xavier, Ferguson, Christopher J., Hoff, Rani A., Derevensky, Jeffrey, Haagsma, Maria C., Delfabbro, Paul, Coulson, Mark, Hussain, Zaheer, Demetrovics, Zsolt
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2016
• Subjects: Behavior, Addictive - diagnosis; Consensus; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Gaming addiction; gaming addiction assessment; Humans; IGD assessment; Internationality; internet gaming disorder; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; problematic gaming; video game addiction; Video Games - psychology; video game addiction; IGD assessment; Gaming addiction; internet gaming disorder; problematic gaming; gaming addiction assessment
• ISSN: 0965-2140; 1360-0443; 1360-0443
• DOI: 10.1111/add.13057

This commentary paper critically discusses the recent debate paper by Petry et al. (2014) that argued there was now an international consensus for assessing Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD). Our collective opinions vary considerably regarding many different aspects of online gaming. However, we contend that the paper by Petry and colleagues does not provide a true and representative international community of researchers in this area. This paper critically discusses and provides commentary on (i) the representativeness of the international group that wrote the ‘consensus’ paper, and (ii) each of the IGD criteria. The paper also includes a brief discussion on initiatives that could be taken to move the field towards consensus. It is hoped that this paper will foster debate in the IGD field and lead to improved theory, better methodologically designed studies, and more robust empirical evidence as regards problematic gaming and its psychosocial consequences and impact.