European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 513–525 | Cite as

When addiction symptoms and life problems diverge: a latent class analysis of problematic gaming in a representative multinational sample of European adolescents

  • Michelle Colder Carras
  • Daniel Kardefelt-Winther
Original Contribution

Abstract

The proposed diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder (IGD) in DSM-5 has been criticized for “borrowing” criteria related to substance addiction, as this might result in misclassifying highly involved gamers as having a disorder. In this paper, we took a person-centered statistical approach to group adolescent gamers by levels of addiction-related symptoms and gaming-related problems, compared these groups to traditional scale scores for IGD, and checked how groups were related to psychosocial well-being using a preregistered analysis plan. We performed latent class analysis and regression with items from IGD and psychosocial well-being scales in a representative sample of 7865 adolescent European gamers. Symptoms and problems matched in only two groups: an IGD class (2.2%) having a high level of symptoms and problems and a Normative class (63.5%) having low levels of symptoms and problems. We also identified two classes comprising 30.9% of our sample that would be misclassified based on their report of gaming-related problems: an Engaged class (7.3%) that seemed to correspond to the engaged gamers described in previous literature, and a Concerned class (23.6%) reporting few symptoms but moderate to high levels of problems. Our findings suggest that a reformulation of IGD is needed. Treating Engaged gamers as having IGD when their poor well-being might not be gaming related may delay appropriate treatment, while Concerned gamers may need help to reduce gaming but would not be identified as such. Additional work to describe the phenomenology of these two groups would help refine diagnosis, prevention and treatment for IGD.

Keywords

Internet gaming disorder Video games Problematic gaming Hazardous gaming Adolescence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the EU NET ADB study for sharing data. This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health Training Grant 5T32MH014592-39.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of both authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

787_2018_1108_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1412 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Association, ArlingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pontes HM, Griffiths MD (2015) Measuring DSM-5 internet gaming disorder: development and validation of a short psychometric scale. Comput Hum Behav 45:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pontes HM, Kiraly O, Demetrovics Z, Griffiths MD (2014) The conceptualisation and measurement of DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder: the development of the IGD-20 Test. PloS One 9.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110137
  4. 4.
    Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM, Gentile DA (2015) The Internet gaming disorder scale. Psychol Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000062 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rehbein F, Kliem S, Baier D et al (2015) Prevalence of Internet Gaming Disorder in German adolescents: diagnostic contribution of the nine DSM-5 criteria in a statewide representative sample. Addict Abingdon Engl.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12849 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petry NM, Rehbein F, Gentile DA et al (2014) An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach. Addict Abingdon Engl.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12457 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffiths MD, Van Rooij AJ, Kardefelt-Winther D et al (2016) Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing internet gaming disorder: a critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014). Addict Abingdon Engl 111:167–175.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kardefelt-Winther D (2016) Conceptualizing Internet use disorders: addiction or coping process? Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12413 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kardefelt-Winther D (2017) Making the case for hypothesis-driven theory testing in the study of Internet Gaming Disorder. Addict Behav 64:234–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.09.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charlton JP, Danforth IDW (2007) Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the context of online game playing. Comput Hum Behav 23:1531–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kardefelt-Winther D, Heeren A, Schimmenti A et al (2017) How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours? Addiction 112(10):1709–1715.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13763 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Rooij AJ, Prause N (2014) A critical review of “Internet addiction” criteria with suggestions for the future. J Behav Addict 3:203–213.  https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.4.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Billieux J, Schimmenti A, Khazaal Y et al (2015) Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research. J Behav Addict 4:119–123.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wakefield JC (2015) DSM-5 substance use disorder: how conceptual missteps weakened the foundations of the addictive disorders field. Acta Psychiatr Scand 132:327–334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12446 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood RTA (2008) Problems with the concept of video game “addiction”: some case study examples. Int J Ment Health Addict 6:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kardefelt-Winther D, Heeren A, Schimmenti A, et al (2016) How can we conceptualize behavioral addictions without pathologizing common behaviors? Addiction in pressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cuthbert BN (2014) The RDoC framework: facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology. World Psychiatry 13:28–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20087 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eaton W, Mojtabai R, Stuart EA et al (2012) Assessment of distress, disorder, impairment, and need in the population. In: Eaton W (ed) Public Mental Health, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kessler RC, Merikangas KR, Berglund P et al (2003) Mild disorders should not be eliminated from the DSM-V. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:1117–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.11.1117 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS (2004) For DSM-V, it’s the “disorder threshold,” stupid. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:1051.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.10.1051-a (author reply 1051–1052)
  21. 21.
    Kessler RC, Merikangas KR, Berglund P et al (2004) For DSM-V, it’s the “disorder threshold”, stupid—reply. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:1051–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.10.1051-b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Üstün B, Kennedy C (2009) What is “functional impairment”? Disentangling disability from clinical significance. World Psychiatry 8:82–85.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2009.tb00219.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferguson CJ, Coulson M, Barnett J (2011) A meta-analysis of pathological gaming prevalence and comorbidity with mental health, academic and social problems. J Psychiatr Res 45:1573–1578.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.09.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    King DL, Delfabbro PH (2014) Is preoccupation an oversimplification? A call to examine cognitive factors underlying internet gaming disorder. Addict Abingdon Engl 109:1566–1567.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kardefelt Winther D (2014) A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: towards a model of compensatory internet use. Comput Hum Behav 31:351–354.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kardefelt Winther D (2015) A critical account of DSM-5 criteria for Internet gaming disorder. Addict Res Theory 23:93–98.  https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2014.935350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paul CA (2011) Optimizing play: how theorycraft changes gameplay and design. Game Stud 11. http://gamestudies.org/1102/about
  28. 28.
    Colder Carras M (2016) Fostering Rationality in Games and Health Research: theorycrafting and the phenomenology of psychiatric disorder. In: Foster. Ration. Games Health Res. http://froghrblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/theorycrafting-and-phenomenology-of.html. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
  29. 29.
    Müller KW, Janikian M, Dreier M et al (2014) Regular gaming behavior and internet gaming disorder in European adolescents: results from a cross-national representative survey of prevalence, predictors, and psychopathological correlates. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0611-2 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsitsika A, Janikian M, Schoenmakers TM et al (2014) Internet addictive behavior in adolescence: a cross-sectional study in seven European countries. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 17:528–535.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0382 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wölfling K, Müller KW, Beutel M (2011) Reliability and validity of the Scale for the Assessment of Pathological Computer-Gaming (CSV-S). Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 61:216–224.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1263145 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Müller KW, Beutel ME, Wölfling K (2014) A contribution to the clinical characterization of Internet addiction in a sample of treatment seekers: validity of assessment, severity of psychopathology and type of co-morbidity. Compr Psychiatry 55:770–777.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.01.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Achenbach T (1991) Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry., Burlington, VTGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Achenbach TM, Becker A, Döpfner M et al (2008) Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: research findings, applications, and future directions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 49:251–275.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01867.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Young KS (1998) Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav 1:237–244.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2014) Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model (Mplus Web Notes No. 21, version 2). Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/asparouhov_muthen_2014.pdf
  37. 37.
    StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software: Release 13. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muthén BO, Muthén LK (1998) Mplus. version 7.3Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kraemer HC (2011) Moderators and mediators: towards the genetic and environmental bases of psychiatric disorders. In: Tsuang MT, Tohen M, Jones PB (eds) Textbook in psychiatric epidemiology, 3rd edn. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Siontis GCM, Ioannidis JPA (2011) Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects. Int J Epidemiol 40:1292–1307.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr099 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ferguson CJ (2009) An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof Psychol Res Pract 40:532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lewis G, Tsuang MT, Tohen M, Jones PB (2011) Introduction to epidemiologic research methods. In: Tsuang MT, Tohen M, Jones PB (eds) Textbook in psychiatric epidemiology, 3rd edn. Wiley, West Sussex, United Kingdom, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Olivier J, May WL, Bell ML (2017) Relative effect sizes for measures of risk. Commun StatTheory Methods 46:6774–6781.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2015.1134575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tsitsika A, Tzavela EC, Schoenmakers TM et al (2013) Internet use and internet addictive behaviour among European adolescents: a cross-sectional study. EU NET ADB. http://youth-health.gr/media/2016/03/eu-net-adb-quantitative-report-d6-2-r-june-2013_2.pdf
  45. 45.
    Faulkner G, Irving H, Adlaf EM, Turner N (2015) Subtypes of adolescent video gamers: a latent class analysis. Int J Ment Health Addict 13(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Rooij AJ, Schoenmakers TM, Vermulst AA et al (2011) Online video game addiction: identification of addicted adolescent gamers. Addict Abingdon Engl 106:205–212.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03104.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ahmadi J, Amiri A, Ghanizadeh A et al (2014) Prevalence of addiction to the internet, computer games, DVD, and video and its relationship to anxiety and depression in a sample of iranian high school students. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci 8(2):75–80PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Desai RA, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cavallo D, Potenza MN (2010) Video-gaming among high school students: health correlates, gender differences, and problematic gaming. Pediatrics 126:e1414–1424.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2706 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jeong EJ, Kim DH (2011) Social activities, self-efficacy, game attitudes, and game addiction. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 14:213–221.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0289 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johansson A, Gotestam KG (2004) Problems with computer games without monetary reward: similarity to pathological gambling. Psychol Rep 95:641–650.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.95.2.641-650 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Colder Carras M, Van Rooij AJ, Van de Mheen D et al (2017) Video gaming in a hyperconnected world: a cross-sectional study of heavy gaming, problematic gaming symptoms, and online socializing in adolescents. Comput Hum Behav 68:472–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kowert R, Oldmeadow JA (2015) Playing for social comfort: online video game play as a social accommodator for the insecurely attached. Comput Hum Behav 53:556–566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tzavela EC, Karakitsou C, Dreier M et al (2015) Processes discriminating adaptive and maladaptive internet use among European adolescents highly engaged online. J Adolesc 40:34–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.12.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Colder Carras M, Labrique A, Foster AM, Lange A, Carras M (2016) Crowdsourcing phenomenology for internet gaming disorder. Presented at the American Psychopathology Association, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aarseth E, Bean AM, Boonen H et al (2016) Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal. J Behav Addict 6:267–270.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.088 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scharkow M, Festl R, Quandt T (2014) Longitudinal patterns of problematic computer game use among adolescents and adults-a 2-year panel study. Addict Abingdon Engl.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12662 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mößle T, Rehbein F (2013) Predictors of problematic video game usage in childhood and adolescence. Sucht Z Für Wiss Prax 59:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Colder Carras M, Porter AM, van Rooij AJ et al (2017) Gamers’ insights into the phenomenology of normal gaming and game “addiction”: a mixed methods study. Comput Hum Behav.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.029 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mihara S, Higuchi S (2017) Cross-sectional and longitudinal epidemiological studies of internet gaming disorder: a systematic review of the literature. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 71:425–444.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12532 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Keyes KM, Galea S (2017) Commentary: the limits of risk factors revisited: is it time for a causal architecture approach? Epidemiol Camb Mass 28:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mental HealthJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations