Skip to main content

Psychometric assessment of the Internet Gaming Disorder diagnostic criteria: An Item Response Theory study

Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2018

Bruno Schivinski, Magdalena Brzozowska-Woś, Erin M. Buchanan, Mark D. Griffiths, Halley M. Pontes

Addictive Behaviors Reports, volume 8, pages 176–184, 2018

  • Open access
  • 3,222 Polish gamers
  • Scale validation
  • Item response theory
  • Graded response model
  • Poland
Read the articleUse the scale
Keywords
  • Internet Gaming Disorder
  • video games
  • DSM-5
  • IGDS9-SF
  • behavioral addictions
  • Polish IGDS9-SF
  • Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form
  • nine IGD criteria
  • diagnostic criteria weighting
  • gaming disorder assessment
  • escape criterion
  • deception criterion
  • cross-cultural adaptation
  • scale translation
  • online survey
  • item response theory (IRT)
  • graded response model
  • confirmatory factor analysis
  • MIMIC model
  • test information curve
  • mirt
  • Mplus
  • Poland
  • gaming forums

The Polish version of the nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form is valid and reliable, and works best for detecting above-average levels of disordered gaming. In 3,222 Polish gamers, item response theory showed that the nine DSM-5 criteria do not carry equal weight: “escape”, “deception” and “continuation” fitted worst.

Key findings

  1. The Polish IGDS9-SF measures one dimension reliably. In 3,222 Polish gamers, a one-factor model fitted well (CFI = 0.968, RMSEA = 0.043), with Cronbach’s α = 0.82, composite reliability = 0.87 and factor determinacy = 0.91 (Schivinski et al., 2018).
  2. The scale is most informative above the average level of disordered gaming. The test information curve peaked between 0 and 2 standard deviations above the mean, so the IGDS9-SF is best suited to identifying gamers with higher levels of Internet Gaming Disorder (Schivinski et al., 2018).
  3. “Escape” is the weakest criterion. “Escape” had the lowest loading (0.47) and discrimination (α = 0.88) and the poorest item fit (S-χ² = 177.50, p < .001); “continuation” and “deception” also fitted poorly (Schivinski et al., 2018).
  4. Preoccupation and withdrawal discriminate best. “Preoccupation” (α = 1.72) and “withdrawal” (α = 1.71) were the most discriminating criteria, which suggests the nine DSM-5 criteria carry different diagnostic weight (Schivinski et al., 2018).
  5. More time gaming at weekends goes with more disordered gaming. Time spent gaming at weekends (β = 0.36), on weekdays (β = 0.08) and per session (β = 0.09) predicted IGD scores, supporting criterion validity (Schivinski et al., 2018).

Use the scale

Polish Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF)

The Polish version of the IGDS9-SF (Pontes & Griffiths, 2015): nine items, one for each DSM-5 criterion of Internet Gaming Disorder, answered for gaming over the past 12 months. Translated, back-translated and piloted in this study and validated with 3,222 Polish gamers. Free to use in research; please cite this article and the original IGDS9-SF.

Items
9 (one dimension), one per DSM-5 criterion; in Polish
Response format
1 = Nigdy (never), 2 = Rzadko (rarely), 3 = Czasami (sometimes), 4 = Często (often), 5 = Bardzo często (very often)
Scoring
Sum of the nine items (range 9–45); higher scores mean more severe disordered gaming
Reliability
Cronbach’s α = 0.82; composite reliability = 0.87; factor determinacy = 0.91
Validated with
3,222 Polish gamers recruited through gaming forums (82.7% male, mean age 20)

Ready-to-use files

The questionnaire

Instrukcje

Poniższe pytania dotyczą Twojej aktywności jako gracza podczas ostatniego roku (tzn. w ciągu ostatnich 12 miesięcy). Aktywność gracza oznacza każdą aktywność związaną z grą odtwarzaną z komputera / laptopa, konsoli do gier lub innego urządzenia (np. telefonu komórkowego, tabletu itp.), zarówno online, jak i offline.

Part 1. Kwalifikacja suggested wording

Czy w ciągu ostatnich 12 miesięcy grałeś/aś w gry wideo?

For researchers: Suggested Polish wording of the eligibility question described in the article (“played videogames in the past 12 months”). Code Nie (no) = 0 and Tak (yes) = 1; respondents who answer Nie do not continue.

Part 2. Internet Gaming Disorder Items 1 to 9 follow the nine DSM-5 criteria: preoccupation, withdrawal, tolerance, loss of control, giving up other activities, continuation, deception, escape and negative consequences.

Zaznacz jedną odpowiedź przy każdym pytaniu. suggested wording

Item 1Nigdy 2Rzadko 3Czasami 4Często 5Bardzo często
IGD1Czy czujesz się zatroskany/a swoim zachowaniem związanym z grami? (Kilka przykładów: Czy rozmyślasz o swojej wcześniejszej aktywności związanej z grami? Czy uważasz, że granie stało się dominującą aktywnością w Twoim życiu codziennym?)
IGD2Czy czujesz większą drażliwość, niepokój, a nawet smutek podczas prób ograniczenia lub przerwania gry?
IGD3Czy czujesz potrzebę spędzania coraz większej ilości czasu grając, w celu osiągnięcia satysfakcji lub przyjemności?
IGD4Czy podejmowane próby ograniczenia lub zaprzestania aktywności związanej z grami kończą się niepowodzeniem?
IGD5Czy straciłeś/aś zainteresowanie poprzednim hobby lub innego typu rozrywką na skutek Twojego zaangażowania w gry?
IGD6Czy kontynuujesz granie pomimo wiedzy, że jest ono przyczyną Twoich problemów/nieporozumień z innymi ludźmi?
IGD7Czy kiedykolwiek oszukałeś/aś, okłamałeś/aś kogokolwiek (rodzina, znajomi, terapeuci, nauczyciele itp.) z powodu Twojej aktywności związanej z graniem?
IGD8Czy grasz po to by choć na krótki czas uciec od złego humoru lub by złagodzić negatywny nastrój bezradności, poczucia winy, niepokoju itp.?
IGD9Czy przez swoją aktywność związaną z grami naraziłeś/aś się na istotne kłopoty w związku, w szkole/uczelni, w pracy?

The instructions, items and response labels are the Polish version published in Appendix 1 of the article; only the spelling of “terapeuci” in item 7 is corrected (printed “erapeuci”). The screening question and the short instruction above the items are suggested wording.

How to administer

  • Ask the screening question first; the article included only people who had played video games in the past 12 months.
  • Keep the 12-month time frame and the instructions, which cover online and offline gaming on any device.
  • The items, instructions and response labels are in Polish, as published in Appendix 1 of the article. For the English original, use Pontes and Griffiths (2015).
  • The IGDS9-SF measures the severity of disordered gaming; it does not diagnose Internet Gaming Disorder. A diagnosis needs a clinical assessment.

How to score

  • Code responses 1 (Nigdy) to 5 (Bardzo często).
  • Total score = sum of IGD1 to IGD9 (range 9–45); higher scores mean more severe disordered gaming.
  • To classify gamers, count a criterion as endorsed only when answered 5 (Bardzo często, very often), as recommended by Pontes and Griffiths (2015); endorsing five or more of the nine criteria follows the DSM-5 threshold for disordered gaming.
  • In the article, item means ranged from 1.71 (item 5) to 2.88 (item 8), and the graded response model gave better fit than the generalized partial credit model.
  • For latent-variable models, specify one factor with the nine items (robust maximum likelihood, MLR, as in the article).

At a glance

Design
Online survey (Qualtrics) advertised through the three largest Polish gaming forums (gry-online.pl, gamesboard.pl, gamesfanatic.pl), March to May 2017
Participants
3,377 gamers who had played in the past 12 months (82.7% male; mean age 20, SD 4.3, range 12–49); 3,222 analysed after data cleaning
Measures
Polish IGDS9-SF (translated and back-translated, piloted with 52 gamers); weekday, weekend and per-session gaming time
Analysis
CFA (MLR) and MIMIC model in Mplus 7.2; reliability (α, CR, FD); graded response model in R (mirt), compared with a generalized partial credit model by AIC
Model fit
CFA χ²(27) = 188.75, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.043, SRMR = 0.025

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the nine IGDS9-SF items

Internet GamingDisorderItem 1Preoccupation0.73Item 2Withdrawal0.64Item 3Tolerance0.72Item 4Loss of control0.63Item 5Give up other activities0.62Item 6Continuation0.78Item 7Deception0.60Item 8Escape0.47Item 9Negative consequences0.63Standardised loadings (Figure 1 and Table 1 of the article); item 8 (escape) below 0.50; N = 3,222. Error terms omitted.
Redrawn from Figure 1 of the article. All nine criteria load on one Internet Gaming Disorder factor; only “escape” (item 8) falls below 0.50. N = 3,222.

Figure 2. Criterion-related validity: MIMIC model

Hours on weekdaysβ = 0.08Hours at weekendsβ = 0.36Hours per sessionβ = 0.09r = .53r = .36r = .27Internet GamingDisorderR² = .22measured by the nine IGDS9-SF itemsStandardised estimates (Figure 2 of the article); all paths p < .01; N = 3,222. χ²(51) = 275.32, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.037.
Redrawn from Figure 2 of the article. Gaming time at weekends, on weekdays and per session predicts Internet Gaming Disorder (R² = .22); N = 3,222.

Figure 3. Trace curves for the items of the IGDS9-SF

1 Never2 Rarely3 Sometimes4 Often5 Very often00.51−6−3036Item 1: preoccupationα = 1.72−6−3036Item 2: withdrawalα = 1.71−6−3036Item 3: toleranceα = 1.6000.51−6−3036Item 4: loss of controlα = 1.53−6−3036Item 5: give up other activitiesα = 1.38−6−3036Item 6: continuationα = 1.5900.51−6−3036Item 7: deceptionα = 1.48−6−3036Item 8: escapeα = 0.88−6−3036Item 9: negative consequencesα = 1.56θ (gaming disorder, standardised latent trait)Probability of each responseRecomputed from the graded response model parameters in Table 2 of the article (N = 3,222).
Recomputed from the graded response model parameters in Table 2 (the article’s Figure 3 shows the same curves). Each panel gives the probability of each answer along the latent trait; “very often” becomes the most likely answer only at high levels of disordered gaming. Item 8 (escape) has the flattest curves.

Figure 4. Test information curve for the overall IGDS9-SF

0246−4−3−2−101234peak: 0 to 2 SD above the meanθ (gaming disorder, standardised latent trait)Test information I(θ)Recomputed from the graded response model parameters in Table 2 of the article (N = 3,222).
Recomputed from the parameters in Table 2. Information peaks between 0 and 2 standard deviations above the mean, so the scale measures above-average levels of disordered gaming most precisely.

Discrimination of the nine IGD criteria (graded response model)

DSM-5 criterion (IGDS9-SF item)1 Preoccupation1.722 Withdrawal1.713 Tolerance1.606 Continuation1.599 Negative consequences1.564 Loss of control1.537 Deception1.485 Give up activities1.388 Escape0.88
Discrimination parameters (α) from Table 2 of the article (N = 3,222); higher values distinguish better between gamers with lower and higher levels of disordered gaming.

Tables

Table 1. Overall descriptive statistics across all items of the Polish IGDS9-SF

Item Loading t Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis R²
1. Do you feel preoccupied with your gaming behavior? (Example: Do you think gaming has become the dominant activity in your daily life?) 0.73 45.11 2.12 (1.13) 0.71 −0.42 0.41
2. Do you feel more irritability, anxiety or even sadness when you try to either reduce or stop your gaming activity? 0.64 41.50 1.84 (1.01) 1.15 0.74 0.39
3. Do you feel the need to spend increasing amount of time engaged gaming in order to achieve satisfaction or pleasure? 0.72 44.09 2.17 (1.13) 0.73 −0.27 0.39
4. Do you systematically fail when trying to control or cease your gaming activity? 0.63 37.29 1.91 (1.05) 1.14 0.70 0.35
5. Have you lost interests in previous hobbies and other entertainment activities as a result of your engagement with the game? 0.62 32.29 1.71 (1.13) 1.51 1.19 0.29
6. Have you continued your gaming activity despite knowing it was causing problems between you and other people? 0.78 41.25 2.15 (1.27) 0.82 −0.49 0.37
7. Have you deceived any of your family members, therapists or others because the amount of your gaming activity? 0.60 36.33 1.89 (1.03) 0.96 0.09 0.33
8. Do you play in order to temporarily escape or relieve a negative mood (e.g., helplessness, guilt, anxiety)? 0.47 21.49 2.88 (1.21) −0.08 −0.91 0.14
9. Have you jeopardized or lost an important relationship, job or an educational or career opportunity because of your gaming activity? 0.63 37.23 1.84 (1.05) 1.12 0.40 0.35

Standardised factor loadings; t = t-test statistic; N = 3,222. Values as printed.

Table 2. Item statistics for the graded response model across all items of the Polish IGDS9-SF

Item α β1 β2 β3 β4 S-χ² df p
Item 1 1.72 −0.37 0.54 1.56 2.65 77.34 83 0.655
Item 2 1.71 −0.04 1.02 2.01 2.92 97.36 83 0.134
Item 3 1.60 −0.53 0.55 1.61 2.57 88.98 84 0.334
Item 4 1.53 −0.16 1.01 2.04 2.84 101.69 88 0.151
Item 5 1.38 0.55 1.24 1.96 2.85 96.28 91 0.333
Item 6 1.59 −0.21 0.61 1.38 2.22 132.65 84 0.001
Item 7 1.48 −0.09 0.91 2.09 3.39 125.26 87 0.005
Item 8 0.88 −1.94 −0.82 0.90 2.94 177.50 85 < 0.001
Item 9 1.56 0.06 0.98 1.99 3.12 112.32 86 0.030

α = discrimination; β = difficulty (threshold) parameters; S-χ² = generalized chi-square item fit statistic (Kang & Chen, 2008; Orlando & Thissen, 2000); N = 3,222.

The question

The American Psychiatric Association proposed nine criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder in the DSM-5 and asked for more research on their clinical and empirical value. No study had applied polytomous item response theory to the nine criteria. We developed the Polish version of the IGDS9-SF, tested its validity and reliability, and examined how well each criterion distinguishes between gamers at different levels of disordered gaming.

Implications

Practical implications

Researchers and clinicians can use the Polish IGDS9-SF to assess disordered gaming in Polish-speaking samples. The scale is most precise for gamers above the average level of symptoms, which suits screening for problematic cases, but scores should not be read as a diagnosis.

Theoretical implications

The nine DSM-5 criteria do not carry equal diagnostic weight: “escape” may work better as a motive for gaming than as a symptom, “deception” depends on others being present, and “continuation” may mark milder levels. These results can inform revisions of the IGD criteria.

Limitations and future research

  • Non-probability online sample with a high share of male gamers.
  • No information on the games or genres played.
  • Screening tools for low-prevalence disorders have low positive predictive values, which can inflate prevalence estimates.

Questions this paper answers

Is there a Polish version of the IGDS9-SF?

Yes. The Polish IGDS9-SF was translated, back-translated and piloted, and validated with 3,222 Polish gamers (α = 0.82, composite reliability = 0.87) (Schivinski et al., 2018). The items are available on this page.

Are all nine DSM-5 criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder equally important?

No. In an item response theory analysis, preoccupation and withdrawal discriminated best, while escape, deception and continuation fitted worst, suggesting different diagnostic weights (Schivinski et al., 2018).

How is the IGDS9-SF scored?

Sum the nine items, each answered from 1 (never) to 5 (very often), for a total of 9 to 45. For classification, a criterion counts as endorsed when answered “very often” (Pontes & Griffiths, 2015).

Is escape a symptom of gaming disorder?

Its role is unclear: “escape” was the weakest IGDS9-SF item in this study and is also one of the main motives for playing, so it may be better treated as a motive than a diagnostic criterion (Schivinski et al., 2018).

Key concepts

Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD)
Persistent and recurrent gaming that leads to significant impairment or distress, proposed in the DSM-5 as a condition for further study, indicated by five or more of nine criteria over 12 months.
IGDS9-SF
The nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (Pontes & Griffiths, 2015), one item per DSM-5 criterion.
Graded response model
An item response theory model for ordered answer categories that estimates each item’s discrimination (α) and the thresholds (β) between categories (Samejima).
Test information curve
A curve showing how precisely a test measures the latent trait at each level; higher information means smaller measurement error.

Open science and materials

Study materials

Scale items
The nine Polish items, instructions and response labels (Appendix 1 of the article) are in the scale kit above; the English items with loadings and descriptive statistics are in Table 1.

How to cite

Schivinski, B., Brzozowska-Woś, M., Buchanan, E. M., Griffiths, M. D., & Pontes, H. M. (2018). Psychometric assessment of the Internet Gaming Disorder diagnostic criteria: An Item Response Theory study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 8, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2018.06.004

Open access under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence.

Related publications

All publications