Gaming disorder screening identifies people whose video-game behavior warrants closer clinical evaluation. A questionnaire can reveal impaired control, increasing priority given to gaming, persistence despite negative consequences, and damage to everyday functioning. It cannot, by itself, establish a psychiatric diagnosis. A responsible assessment combines a validated instrument with an interview, a timeline of the behavior, evidence of significant impairment, and consideration of alternative explanations. The World Health Organization's ICD-11 guidance supplies the diagnostic framework; instrument scores supply one part of the evidence.
What a gaming disorder screening test actually measures
The practical purpose of screening is to decide whether a more detailed evaluation is appropriate. Some measures emphasize the frequency of problematic experiences, others the number of endorsed criteria, and others the severity of consequences. These choices lead to different interpretations. A teenager who plays intensively during school holidays, a professional esports competitor, and an adult whose gaming has displaced sleep and employment may each score differently depending on the questions. The central clinical question is whether the activity has become persistently difficult to control and is associated with clinically meaningful impairment. The systematic review by King and colleagues documented major differences across instruments and found no single universally superior scale.
Screening, symptom measurement, risk estimation, and diagnosis have distinct purposes. A screen is designed to flag possible cases; a symptom scale can quantify experiences along a continuum; a diagnostic interview determines whether the full clinical requirements are met. A change in a screening score during treatment may be useful, but it does not automatically indicate remission or recurrence. Even a scientifically validated questionnaire may perform differently in a general school population, an online gamer sample, and a specialty treatment clinic. Selection of the tool must follow the question being asked.
ICD-11 gaming disorder and DSM-5-TR Internet Gaming Disorder
The ICD-11 clinical definition
The World Health Organization classifies gaming disorder among disorders due to addictive behaviors in ICD-11. Its defining pattern involves impaired control over gaming; increased priority assigned to gaming over other interests and daily activities; and continuation or escalation despite negative consequences. The pattern must result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or another important area. It normally has been evident for at least 12 months, although the duration may be shorter when all diagnostic requirements are met and symptoms are severe. Both online and offline video-game activity fall within the concept. WHO, Gaming disorder.
The significance of these requirements is cumulative. Gaming has to become difficult to regulate; its priority has to displace meaningful roles or activities; persistence has to continue despite concrete harm; and the resulting pattern has to interfere substantially with functioning. An isolated conflict with a parent, one late night of gaming, or a large number of hours played does not establish this syndrome. Clinicians investigate the trajectory and context of the behavior rather than inferring disorder from an isolated observation.
The DSM-5-TR research construct
The American Psychiatric Association places Internet Gaming Disorder in the DSM-5-TR section devoted to conditions for further study. Its proposed research framework has nine indicators, including preoccupation, withdrawal-like experiences, tolerance, unsuccessful efforts to control play, abandonment of other activities, continued use despite problems, deception, gaming to escape negative moods, and jeopardized relationships or opportunities. The proposed threshold is five or more indicators within 12 months, with significant impairment or distress. In DSM-5-TR, it remains a condition proposed for further research, rather than a formally classified disorder in the main diagnostic section. American Psychiatric Association, Internet Gaming.
These frameworks overlap but are not identical. ICD-11 builds its definition around the core behavioral pattern and consequential impairment. DSM-oriented questionnaires often count proposed symptoms with varying severity and specificity. A result expressed as five endorsed DSM-related indicators is therefore different from a clinical finding that a person meets the ICD-11 gaming disorder requirements. Researchers must name the framework behind every classification and clinicians must document which diagnostic system they actually use.
Comparison of major gaming disorder questionnaires
Gaming Disorder Test: GDT
The Gaming Disorder Test, usually abbreviated GDT, was designed as a concise four-item measure aligned with the ICD-11 model. It captures impaired control, increasing priority, gaming despite negative consequences, and associated functional impairment. Its development included samples from China and the United Kingdom, with psychometric evidence supporting a coherent measure of gaming-disorder-related experiences. Its brevity makes it convenient for research and preliminary identification, including settings where lengthy assessment is impractical. Pontes and colleagues, GDT development.
The GDT's alignment with ICD-11 is an advantage when ICD-11 constructs are the primary target. It is also a limitation to recognize that item alignment is not equivalent to independent confirmation of clinical diagnostic accuracy in every population. Interpretation must incorporate the respondent's age, setting, language, severity of harm, and the time frame of the response. A clinician should not treat a particular self-report sum as a universally established diagnostic boundary.
Gaming Disorder Identification Test: GADIT
GADIT is an eight-item ICD-11-oriented instrument designed to represent the three core behavioral features and functional impairment, with two items for each area. Its development drew on a large pool of questionnaire items and tested the resulting instrument in samples from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and an Australian university setting. The study reported promising internal consistency and associations with another gaming measure and several gaming-related consequences. These findings support its use as an instrument for identifying potential gaming problems. Chan and colleagues, GADIT.
GADIT advances assessment by explicitly representing functional impairment rather than treating gaming intensity as the decisive outcome. Nevertheless, development and validation against correlated self-reports are not interchangeable with validation against independent blinded clinical interviews. The instrument's performance in specialist populations, younger children, and populations with different languages or gaming cultures requires attention to the evidence actually available for those groups.
Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form: IGDS9-SF
The IGDS9-SF is a nine-item tool that operationalizes the DSM-5 proposed Internet Gaming Disorder indicators. A systematic review examining 21 studies and 15 language versions found generally adequate internal consistency and substantial evidence for a largely unidimensional structure, while identifying gaps in some measurement properties and responsiveness. The scale has a comparatively extensive research literature and can be useful when the task is to measure DSM-oriented symptom severity rather than make an ICD-11 diagnosis. Poon and colleagues, systematic review.
Its scores require the same interpretive restraint as any other screening measure. A total score is sensitive to item wording, response options, scoring conventions, and the group in which it was validated. Findings from translated versions cannot automatically establish equivalent cutoffs across cultures. Because some proposed DSM criteria such as preoccupation and escape may appear in intense but nonclinical gaming, clinical follow-up must establish the seriousness and functional meaning of endorsed experiences.
Ten-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test: IGDT-10
The IGDT-10 operationalizes DSM-5-related proposed criteria using ten questions. Its original validation examined a large volunteer sample of online gamers and explored how individual criteria discriminated different levels of severity. The findings emphasized that preoccupation and mood escape were less discriminating than several more consequential indicators. That matters in an interview: a person may think about gaming frequently or use it for stress relief without exhibiting persistent pathological loss of control. Király and colleagues, IGDT-10.
The IGDT-10 has also been studied internationally, with evidence of measurement invariance across several language-based gamer samples. Such findings contribute to cross-cultural research, while remaining conditional on recruitment methods, translation quality, and the composition of participants. Online self-selected gamers are different from randomly sampled community residents and from people presenting for clinical care. The construct being measured also remains the DSM research framework, which is not automatically interchangeable with ICD-11. Király and colleagues, cross-cultural validation.
Gaming Addiction Scale and other established instruments
The seven-item Gaming Addiction Scale, frequently called GAS-7, and additional tools such as AICA-Sgaming and the Lemmens IGD-9 have accumulated psychometric support. The problem is that these measures arose from somewhat different theoretical traditions and diagnostic definitions. They can emphasize salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse, or loss of control in different ways. Researchers who pool their apparent prevalence rates without attending to this variation may produce estimates that combine different constructs. King and colleagues, systematic review.
A synthesis of the reliability and validity of major gaming-disorder scales found generally substantial internal consistency and test–retest reliability, but psychometric reliability does not prove that a score corresponds to a clinical disorder. High consistency can occur among items that collectively measure generalized distress, intensive engagement, or frequent gaming. Good assessment requires construct validity, discrimination from closely related experiences, and evidence that the instrument works for the intended purpose. Meta-analysis of gaming-disorder scales.
Screening children and adolescents
Adolescent self-report: GADIS-A
The Gaming Disorder Scale for Adolescents, GADIS-A, was developed to assess ICD-11-related gaming disorder among young people. Its validation included 819 frequent gamers aged 10–17 and a caregiver for each respondent. The developers identified domains reflecting problematic gaming behavior and negative consequences and investigated how well scores differentiated risk groups. These findings offer useful age-specific evidence and underline the importance of documenting real harm in education, relationships, emotion regulation, and everyday routines. Paschke, Austermann, and Thomasius, GADIS-A.
Using an adolescent-specific scale remains important because school obligations, parental limits, and developmental capacities differ from adult work and independent living. A distressed adolescent may game heavily during a period of social isolation or conflict, while another may underreport problematic behavior to avoid losing access to devices. A structured assessment should establish whether the problems are recurrent and meaningful, include the young person's account, and avoid treating parental disapproval alone as psychiatric evidence.
Parent ratings: GADIS-P
GADIS-P adapts the assessment to parent or caregiver report. In a validation study of 800 parent–adolescent pairs, agreement between parent and adolescent evaluations was moderate rather than complete. This difference is clinically informative. Parents may observe missed schoolwork or family conflict but know less about the subjective experience of control; adolescents may accurately describe motivations but minimize hidden consequences. Paschke and colleagues, GADIS-P.
A clinician can compare reports and investigate discrepancies as part of assessment rather than declaring one source correct by default. School feedback, sleep patterns, academic trajectory, changing friendships, family expectations, and relevant medical information can help determine the significance of the observed pattern. Developmental context and safeguarding needs also matter when mental health risks or severe family conflict are present.
How a clinician assesses gaming disorder
Step 1: Establish the presenting concern and history
A clinical interview begins by asking what has changed and why help is being sought now. The person may report failed attempts to reduce gaming, worsening grades, missed work, irregular sleep, emotional distress, relationship problems, or conflict over gaming limits. The clinician develops a timeline showing onset, escalation, attempted changes, periods of improvement, and consequences. Different game genres, social commitments, streaming, esports training, and gaming-related spending may contribute differently to the experience.
It is useful to distinguish game play itself from surrounding behaviors. Voice chat, social media, watching gaming videos, and purchasing in-game items can occupy time or generate conflict without necessarily representing the same clinical process as uncontrolled gaming. Gambling with real-world stakes, including some game-adjacent wagering, requires a distinct assessment of gambling behavior. Keeping activities separate allows interventions to target the mechanisms actually producing harm.
Step 2: Examine each core ICD-11 feature
Impaired control can involve difficulties regulating initiation, duration, frequency, intensity, or stopping despite repeated efforts. The interviewer seeks concrete examples: missed planned stopping times, repeated inability to disengage from sessions, or disrupted obligations even after the individual recognizes a pattern. Priority is explored by asking which activities have been abandoned, reduced, or repeatedly displaced. Continued gaming despite adverse consequences requires identifying consequences, the person's awareness of them, and whether the behavior persisted afterward.
A single yes-or-no response cannot capture the relationship between choices and constraints. A player may stay online to finish a cooperative match out of social responsibility, or play longer during a competition without showing pervasive loss of control. Clinical judgment weighs the pattern over time, the flexibility shown in other circumstances, opportunities for change, and consequences that can be independently described. The assessment should reflect the precise ICD-11 framework rather than a generic label of excessive gaming. WHO, Gaming disorder.
Step 3: Verify functional impairment
Functional impairment is a defining clinical requirement and deserves detailed attention. The interviewer asks about work or school performance, attendance, responsibilities, sleep, physical health, relationships, hobbies, self-care, and emotional well-being. Evidence is more compelling when significant deterioration is documented over time and can reasonably be linked to patterns of gaming. An individual can play for many hours while maintaining important obligations; another can play fewer hours but experience substantial disruption.
Assessment also needs to consider the direction of the relationship. Depression may cause withdrawal from other activities and increased gaming, while uncontrolled gaming may worsen sleep and social isolation. Both processes can operate together. Neither a cross-sectional questionnaire nor a single interview can always establish causality. The working formulation records what is known, what remains uncertain, and how the clinician intends to evaluate competing explanations.
Step 4: Determine duration, persistence, and severity
The ICD-11 pattern ordinarily extends over approximately 12 months, with a shorter period potentially sufficient when all requirements are met and symptoms are severe. The interviewer therefore reconstructs symptoms across seasons, work schedules, vacations, examinations, and changes in living conditions. A temporary increase after the release of a popular game should be considered in its actual context. Severity includes the extent of impairment, inability to modify gaming, the number of domains affected, and the consequences of attempts to change.
Clinicians can repeat validated scales during care, but an improvement of several points should be interpreted alongside restored functioning, sustainable behavior, and the person's own goals. Scores may fluctuate because of temporary access to devices, changing obligations, or stress; the underlying clinical state requires a broader assessment.
Step 5: Examine comorbidity and differential diagnosis
An assessment should address depression, anxiety, attention difficulties, ADHD, autism-related interests and routines, sleep disorders, substance use, bipolar symptoms, trauma, and family stress when clinically indicated. This is especially important because restlessness, preoccupation, emotion regulation problems, and social withdrawal appear in several psychological conditions. In ADHD, time management and inhibition difficulties may complicate gaming limits. In autism, an intensive interest may provide meaningful structure or connection; a diagnosis of gaming disorder still requires the specific maladaptive pattern and significant harm.
Mood episodes require particular care. During mania or hypomania, a person's sleep, activity, impulsivity, and engagement in rewarding behavior may change substantially. Gaming during such an episode has to be interpreted in relation to the mood condition and its time course. Clinical evaluation also considers whether problematic gaming persists independently of those episodes. Differential diagnosis is an active process of establishing the best explanation for impairment rather than simply collecting the highest possible number of symptom labels.
Step 6: Identify safety concerns and decide what happens next
Severe distress, depression, escalating conflict, substance use, impaired self-care, and statements suggesting hopelessness warrant proportionate safety assessment. Clinicians should ask directly about immediate risks when indicated and arrange appropriate urgent support if a person may harm themselves or others. An online gaming-disorder test is not a suicide-risk screen and must never be used as one. There is no defensible clinical pathway from a gaming score alone to an emergency prediction.
After the assessment, a clinician may conclude that the person meets diagnostic requirements, has hazardous or problematic gaming without a disorder, is primarily affected by another condition, or needs further observation. The result can inform collaborative treatment planning, family support, sleep and routine interventions, and follow-up. A careful assessment also identifies retained strengths, social connections, and activities that the person values.
Why screening scores can be misleading
Sensitivity, specificity, and prevalence
Sensitivity describes how often a test flags people who truly have the condition under a specified reference standard. Specificity describes how often it correctly does not flag people without it. Positive predictive value describes the probability that a positive result reflects a real case in a particular population. These quantities are related but different. When the condition is uncommon in the population being tested, even a reasonably accurate screening instrument can produce a substantial proportion of false positives. That is a mathematical property of screening in low-prevalence settings.
For example, consider a purely illustrative test with 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity in 1,000 people when 2% actually meet a valid diagnostic standard. It would identify about 18 of the 20 true cases while also flagging approximately 98 of the 980 noncases. Only about 18 of 116 positive screens would be true cases, a positive predictive value near 16%. These numbers are hypothetical and are not performance estimates for any named gaming questionnaire. Their purpose is to show why a positive online score must be followed by an appropriate clinical evaluation.
Cutoffs and reference standards
A cutoff is meaningful only in relation to how it was derived. Some researchers choose thresholds that maximize a balance of sensitivity and specificity; others prioritize detecting nearly every potential case. A research threshold may be calibrated against another questionnaire rather than an independent clinical diagnosis. In that situation the resulting accuracy statistic represents agreement with the comparator measure, not definitive diagnostic validity.
Cross-study comparisons must therefore establish the reference standard, recruitment strategy, age group, language, time frame, and definitions of impairment. Cutoffs developed in treatment-seeking adults may not work in elementary school students. A translated questionnaire may require more than literal linguistic accuracy; cultural interpretations of gaming, success, family conflict, and distress can alter item meaning. King and colleagues, measurement review.
False positives and false negatives
False positives can occur when intense enthusiasm, professional gaming, ordinary frustration with limits, or gaming for temporary relief is interpreted as dependence. Items mentioning preoccupation or escape may be endorsed without a clinically impairing pattern. False negatives can result from concealment, shame, lack of insight, narrow item coverage, ambiguous wording, or insufficient attention to offline gaming. A person may also recognize harms differently at different stages of change.
Measurement errors have human consequences. Overdiagnosis can produce stigma, unnecessary restrictions, and conflict, especially for adolescents. Missed cases may delay support for deteriorating functioning and co-occurring conditions. Ethical screening seeks a balanced assessment strategy and explains uncertainty without presenting a questionnaire outcome as a definitive psychiatric verdict.
What psychometric validation does and does not establish
Reliability is a necessary foundation
Internal consistency examines whether items tend to measure related phenomena. Test–retest reliability concerns score stability when the underlying construct is expected to be stable. Strong results support dependable measurement under the study conditions. They do not establish that a tool distinguishes serious disorder from enthusiastic play or that an intervention is effective. A meta-analysis of major gaming-disorder instruments reported favorable average reliability estimates, but the authors also examined wider validity relationships because reliability addresses only one dimension of measurement quality. Gaming-disorder scale meta-analysis.
Construct, criterion, and cross-cultural validity
Construct validity asks whether the measure behaves as the theory predicts, including relationships with relevant harm and weaker relationships with unrelated characteristics. Criterion validity asks how the score compares with a defensible outside standard. Clinical diagnostic accuracy requires a reference process capable of making an independent diagnostic decision. Translation and measurement invariance research investigates whether different populations understand and respond to the instrument in sufficiently comparable ways.
Self-selected online samples may overrepresent highly engaged players and people interested in gaming problems. Correlations with depression or screen time can reflect shared distress, confounding, or overlapping item content. Longitudinal designs improve understanding of temporal ordering, while independently assessed clinical samples provide stronger evidence about classification. These distinctions should be explicit when interpreting any published validation study.
When evidence is limited or contested
The existence of many scales can create an illusion of consensus. The 2020 systematic review identified 32 distinct instruments across 320 studies and described inconsistent coverage of key criteria, particularly continuation despite harm. It found several promising measures, but no clear overall winner. Since that review, ICD-11-oriented instruments such as GADIT have expanded the field. Their newer validation evidence is informative without erasing the need for further independent clinical and cross-cultural investigation. King and colleagues; Chan and colleagues.
Evidence quality varies across questions. The official ICD-11 clinical definition is established within its classification system. The ability of particular questionnaires to measure intended constructs has substantial but heterogeneous supporting evidence. Universal clinical cutoffs and interchangeability across instruments are less secure. Claims about gaming causing a separate condition, or about an individual player's prognosis from one screening score, require a distinct evidentiary basis.
Choosing the right questionnaire
The first decision is whether the assessment is guided by ICD-11 or by the DSM-5-TR proposed research framework. For an ICD-11-oriented preliminary assessment, the GDT and GADIT directly address its central features. For DSM-oriented research or symptom monitoring, IGDS9-SF and IGDT-10 reflect the proposed nine-indicator framework. For adolescents, GADIS-A and parent-rated GADIS-P provide developmentally tailored options. These are examples of use cases, not a ranking declaring one instrument the best choice in all settings.
The second decision concerns the purpose: population surveillance, school screening, initial clinical triage, research enrollment, differential assessment, or monitoring over time. A very brief measure may be helpful for initial triage but can miss clinical nuance. A more detailed instrument can increase coverage while adding time and interpretive complexity. Practitioners should check whether a version has been validated for the participant's age, language, and care setting, and whether its scoring instructions and appropriate use are available from the original developers.
The third decision concerns follow-up capacity and ethics. Screening without a realistic pathway to explanatory assessment may leave a person with an alarming label and no guidance. A responsible program specifies who reviews positive screens, what confidentiality rules apply, how parents and minors are involved, which comorbidities are evaluated, and what support follows. The person should understand that the instrument identifies a reason for assessment rather than delivering a verdict.
Interpreting online gaming addiction tests
Many popular websites offer an instant gaming addiction test, often with a numerical score and categorical risk labels. Some reproduce portions of scientific instruments; others use proprietary questions with no published validation. Readers can ask four basic questions: Which diagnostic framework does the test use? Is the questionnaire named and sourced? Was its cutoff evaluated in a population similar to mine? Does the result clearly explain that clinical diagnosis requires further assessment?
Online tools are most useful as prompts for reflection about control, consequences, and functioning. A positive result deserves attention when it matches concrete impairment. A low score should not dismiss obvious distress or deteriorating performance. Accurate screening explains the context and limits of the measure; it does not turn the output into a medical certificate. If gaming is disrupting important areas of life, discussion with a qualified health professional is more informative than repeatedly taking different online quizzes.
Practical implications for families, schools, and clinicians
Families benefit from describing observable changes rather than arguing over a universal number of acceptable gaming hours. Useful information includes missed sleep, reduced school engagement, abandoned relationships, repeated broken agreements, and the player's own difficulties regulating use. Discussions should leave space for the social, creative, and emotional benefits of games. At the same time, persistent deterioration calls for a thoughtful response even if the player rejects the label of addiction.
Schools and youth services should use assessments proportionately. Students may differ in disability status, learning needs, family resources, cultural expectations, and access to structured recreation. Universal screening without evidence that the instrument works in that setting creates avoidable misclassification. When there is concern, multidisciplinary assessment can incorporate teachers, caregivers, and mental health professionals while protecting privacy and avoiding stigmatizing language.
Clinical services can document which framework and questionnaire they use, how impairment was verified, what alternative explanations were considered, and why a particular follow-up plan was selected. Progress is evaluated with functional outcomes and the person's circumstances in addition to scores. Such documentation makes screening useful for care and more reproducible for research.
Frequently asked questions
Can a questionnaire diagnose gaming disorder?
A questionnaire can identify symptoms and guide referral. Diagnosis requires evaluation of the complete clinical pattern, significant functional impairment, duration, context, and alternative explanations. Self-report alone cannot securely establish each of those elements.
Is the GDT the same as the IGDS9-SF?
No. GDT is a four-item, ICD-11-oriented scale. IGDS9-SF reflects the nine proposed DSM Internet Gaming Disorder indicators. Their scores have different meanings and should not be converted into one another without specific supporting validation evidence.
Is playing games for eight hours a day evidence of disorder?
Gaming time can be relevant to risk, sleep, and daily balance, but hours alone are insufficient. A clinician examines impaired control, displaced obligations, continued play despite consequences, and demonstrable impairment. The meaning of time also depends on work, holidays, competition, health, and age.
Do parents and teenagers have to agree for a screening result to count?
Their accounts are valuable but may differ. Disagreement can reflect different observations, awareness, motivations, or expectations. The clinician integrates both perspectives, assesses concrete consequences, and seeks additional context when appropriate.
Does a high score mean lifelong addiction?
A score is a measurement at one point in time and cannot establish an individual's lifelong course. Prognosis depends on many factors, including severity, co-occurring conditions, environment, available support, and how functioning changes over time.
Should a negative result end the assessment?
Not necessarily. Where there is substantial harm, psychiatric distress, or credible information about impaired control, clinical evaluation remains appropriate despite a low score. Every screen has limits, and the threshold must match its use.
Related Articles
Phone Addiction: Is Smartphone Addiction a Real Diagnosis? examines diagnostic boundaries in another digital-behavior domain. Problematic Smartphone Use: Signs, Risk Factors, and What Research Shows offers a neighboring perspective on problematic use and functional impairment. These are separate clinical and research topics from video-game disorder.
Gaming Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment — Understand ICD-11 gaming disorder, functional impairment, clinical assessment, treatment research, and when gaming becomes a health concern.
Internet Gaming Disorder in DSM-5-TR vs Gaming Disorder in ICD-11 — Compare DSM-5-TR Internet Gaming Disorder research criteria with ICD-11 gaming disorder and their implications for assessment.
Heavy Gaming vs Gaming Disorder: Warning Signs and Functional Impairment — Distinguish frequent or intense video game play from loss of control, persistent impairment, and recognized gaming disorder.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). Internet gaming. Official clinical information.
Chan, G. C. K., et al. (2024). The Gaming Disorder Identification Test (GADIT): A screening tool for gaming disorder based on ICD-11. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 13(3), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00038.
King, D. L., et al. (2020). Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 77, 101831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101831.
Király, O., et al. (2017). Validation of the Ten-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10) and evaluation of the nine DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder criteria. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.005.
Király, O., et al. (2019). Ten-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10): Measurement invariance and cross-cultural validation across seven language-based samples. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. PubMed record.
Paschke, K., Austermann, M. I., and Thomasius, R. (2020). Assessing ICD-11 gaming disorder in adolescent gamers: Development and validation of the Gaming Disorder Scale for Adolescents (GADIS-A). Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(4), 993. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9040993.
Paschke, K., Austermann, M. I., and Thomasius, R. (2021). Assessing ICD-11 gaming disorder in adolescent gamers by parental ratings: Development and validation of the Gaming Disorder Scale for Parents (GADIS-P). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00105.
Pontes, H. M., et al. (2021). Measurement and conceptualization of gaming disorder according to the World Health Organization framework: The development of the Gaming Disorder Test. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00088-z.
Poon, L. Y. J., et al. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF): Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(10), e26821. https://doi.org/10.2196/26821.
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Gaming disorder. WHO ICD-11 classification FAQ.
World Health Organization. (2020). Addictive behaviours: Gaming disorder. Official questions and answers.