To have or not to have a problematic internet use : comparative results from users, clinicians wand the Internet Addiction Test 
Aims : An evaluation of problematic Internet use (PIU) is essentially based on self-reported questionnaires, without regard for all possible points of view. The goal of this study is to document different sources of information used to consider PIU. The study compares the perception of adolescents being treated for PIU regarding their condition with that of clinicians’ and to Internet Addiction Test scores (IAT). Methods : 74 participants aged 14 to 17 were recruited in various addiction treatment centres. They completed the IAT and participated in semi-structured interviews evaluating presence of PIU and their perception of the latter. At the end of the interviews, the clinicians evaluated whether or not there was PIU and provided detailed explanations of their answers. The various reasons given by users and clinicians were established based on the responses given, and descriptive and frequency distribution analyses were carried out. A frequency distribution analysis was used to identify similarities among different viewpoints. Results : In 59.5 % of cases, all three points of view concerning a participant’s condition were in agreement. The reasons most frequently given by adolescents and clinicians to support their choice of attributing a PIU were presence of risks, control issues, and very high number of hours spent online. Conclusions : The results suggest that although there are differences between the perceptions of adolescents undergoing treatment and clinicians, and IAT scores, the reasons given by both parties to explain their assessments meet the diagnosis criteria reported in the literature. Our study highlights the importance of considering various points of view to establish emerging condition such as PIU.