Do you game to escape from or forget about personal problems, or to relieve uncomfortable feelings such as guilt, anxiety, helplessness or depression? Risk/lose relationships/opportunities. Do you risk or lose significant relationships, or job, educational or career opportunities because of gaming?One of the most commonly used instruments for the measurement of addiction, the PVP Questionnaire (Problem Video Game Playing Questionnaire, Tejeiro & Moran, 2002), was presented as a quantitative measure, not as a diagnostic tool. According to Griffiths, "all addictions (whether chemical or behavioral) are essentially about constant rewards and reinforcement". He proposes that addiction has six components: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse. But the APAs nine criteria for diagnosing Internet Gaming Disorder were made by taking point of departure in eight different diagnostic/measuring tools proposed in other studies. Thus, the APAs criteria attempt to condense the scientific work on diagnosing Internet Gaming Disorder. World Health Organization
The World Health Organization (WHO) had proposed and later included "gaming disorder" in the 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), released in June 2018, which was approved by the World Health Assembly in May 2019. The use and enforcement of ICD-11 is expected to start on 1 January 2022. Screening tools
The first psychometric test to assess IGD was the Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20). This test includes 20 questions designed to assess the extent of problems caused by disordered gaming and the degree of symptoms experienced by gamers.
The prevalence was found to be 5.06% among a high-school student population from Sri Lanka, suggesting an increasing trend in low- and middle-income countries as well. A longer time spent on video games predicts a tendency towards pathological gaming in the future. The studies, however, used various methodologies and definitions, which renders consensus difficult to achieve and may explain the wide range of prevalence. Research
Debates on the classification
A meta-analytic review of pathological gaming studies concluded that about 3% of gamers may experience some symptoms of pathological gaming. The report noted problems in the field with defining and measuring pathological gaming and concluded that pathological gaming behaviors were more likely the product of underlying mental health problems rather than the inverse.Barnett and Coulson expressed concern that much of the debate on the issue of addiction may be a knee jerk response stimulated by poor understanding of games and game players. Such issues may lead both society and scholars to exaggerate the prevalence and nature of problematic gaming, and over-focus on games specifically, while ignoring underlying mental health issues. However, Problem gamblers have a higher chance for getting mental illness as well.Other scholars have cautioned that comparing the symptoms of problematic gaming with problematic gambling is flawed, and that such comparisons may introduce research artifacts and artificially inflate prevalence estimates. For instance, Richard Wood has observed that behaviors which are problematic in regards to gambling may not be as problematic when put into the context of other behaviors that are rewarding such as gaming.