Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
High Involvement Versus Pathological Involvement in Video Games: a Crucial Distinction for Ensuring the Validity and Utility of Gaming Disorder
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
High Involvement Versus Pathological Involvement in Video Games: a Crucial Distinction for Ensuring the Validity and Utility of Gaming Disorder
Do you wish to request the book?
High Involvement Versus Pathological Involvement in Video Games: a Crucial Distinction for Ensuring the Validity and Utility of Gaming Disorder
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
High Involvement Versus Pathological Involvement in Video Games: a Crucial Distinction for Ensuring the Validity and Utility of Gaming Disorder
2019
Overview
Purpose of review
The year 2018 was marked by the official recognition of Gaming Disorder (GD) as a mental condition with its inclusion in the proposed eleventh edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Recently, a group of scholars has repeatedly criticized the notion of GD proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), arguing that its inclusion in ICD-11 would pathologize highly involved but healthy gamers. It is therefore of crucial importance to clarify the characteristics of high involvement versus pathological involvement in video games, the boundaries between these constructs, and the implementation of screening and diagnostic GD tools that distinguish the two.
Recent findings
Increasing evidence supports the view that intense video game playing may involve patterns of gaming that are characterized by high involvement but that are non-pathological. Furthermore, some criteria for addictive and related disorders may reflect
peripheral
features that are not necessarily indicative of pathology, whereas others may reflect
core
features that are more likely to adequately identify pathological behavior and so have diagnostic validity. Finally, it is key to assess functional impairment associated with gaming, so that a GD diagnosis has clinical utility.
Summary
Available evidence supports the crucial need to distinguish between high and pathological involvement in video games, in order to avoid overdiagnosis and pathologization of normal behavior. The definition of GD adopted in ICD-11 has clinical utility and diagnostic validity since it explicitly mentions the functional impairment caused by problem gaming and its diagnostic guidelines refer to
core
addiction features, reflecting pathological involvement.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing,Springer Nature B.V
