A critical account of DSM-5 criteria for internet gaming disorder
A critical account of DSM-5 criteria for internet gaming disorder
复制标题
DOI：
10.3109/16066359.2014.935350
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel
DSM-5附录中包含了网络游戏障碍的评估标准，这意味着该领域的研究可能会增加。然而，标准化的评估工具取决于确定充分反映这一现象的标准。我认为，在这篇文章中，建议的标准的问题一直被忽视。首先，在定义评估标准时，有一种倾向是坚持DSM-4关于物质使用障碍或病理性赌博的标准，而不是旨在捕捉网络游戏障碍的独特决定因素。此外，用于游戏的诊断工具尤其需要考虑到文化和社会鸿沟，而在评估药物使用时，这些鸿沟不是问题。最后，一些建议的标准在游戏的背景下没有什么意义，似乎被包括作为残留从现有的障碍。在这篇文章中，我批判性地讨论了每一个提出的标准。我的结论是，欺骗是社会或文化主观的，取决于接近玩家的人，而不是玩家自己。诸如专注、退缩、容忍和对其他活动失去兴趣等症状，都可能在网络游戏广泛流行后出现过度使用的合理解释，这使得它们在评估工具中不可靠。最后，我认为，宽容没有意义的游戏背景下，是一个剩余的标准，从物质使用障碍。这些标准的重新评估将有利于网络游戏障碍的标准化评估工具的开发。
The inclusion of assessment criteria for internet gaming disorder in the DSM-5 appendix means that research in this area is likely to increase. However, a standardized assessment instrument is contingent on identifying criteria that adequately captures the phenomenon. I argue in this article that issues with the proposed criteria are consistently overlooked. First, there has been a tendency to adhere to DSM-4 criteria for substance use disorders or pathological gambling when defining the assessment criteria, rather than aiming to capture the unique determinants of internet gaming disorder. Furthermore, a diagnostic instrument for gaming in particular needs to account for cultural and social divides that are a non-issue when assessing substance use. Finally, some of the proposed criteria make little sense within the context of gaming and seem to be included as residuals from existing disorders. In this article, I discuss critically each proposed criterion. I conclude that deception is socially or culturally subjective and depends on people close to the player, rather than the player himself. Symptoms like preoccupation, withdrawal, tolerance and a loss of interest in other activities may all be preceded by legitimate explanations for excessive use following widespread popularity of online gaming, which makes them unreliable in an assessment instrument. Finally, I argue that tolerance does not make sense within a gaming context and is a residual criterion from substance use disorders. A reappraisal of these criteria would benefit the development of a standardized assessment instrument for internet gaming disorder.