A critical account of DSM-5 criteria for internet gaming disorder

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Do gaming motives mediate between psychiatric symptoms and problematic gaming? An empirical survey study (2017, background): “At present, there is no consensus on IGD criteria, definition, and conceptualisation (Hellman et al. 2012; Brus 2013; Kardefelt-Winther 2014a; Kir aly et al. 2015; Griffiths et al. 2016).”
Video Game Addiction: The Push To Pathologize Video Games (2017, unknown): “…and resonantly echoed by other scholars (e.g., Aarseth et al., 2016; Ceranoglu, 2010; Charlton, 2002; Ferguson, 2016; Festl, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2013; Griffiths et al., 2016; Kardefelt-Winther, 2015, 2016; Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017; Lehenbauer-Baum & Fohringer, 2015; Snodgrass et al., 2017).”
Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing internet gaming disorder: a critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014) (2016, unknown): “Therefore, some of the present authors do not think this criterion adequately differentiate fascination from compulsion, and its usefulness may therefore be questionable [5,22].”
Pathological video-gaming among youth: A prospective study examining dynamic protective factors (2015, background): “…that excessive internet use can be better conceptualised as compensatory internet use as this approach highlights motivational factors that are helpful in ‘‘explaining why certain individuals use the internet excessively despite experiencing negative outcome’’ (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014b, p.118).”