网络游戏障碍结构性面谈检查(Structured Clinical Interview for Internet Gaming Disorder, SCI-IGD)妥当性及DSM-5诊断标准的诊断有用性验证

조성훈, 권정혜
{"title":"网络游戏障碍结构性面谈检查(Structured Clinical Interview for Internet Gaming Disorder, SCI-IGD)妥当性及DSM-5诊断标准的诊断有用性验证","authors":"조성훈, 권정혜","doi":"10.15842/kjcp.2016.35.4.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The inclusion of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) in the DSM-5 appendix has facilitated research on the development and validation of assessment tools of IGD. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, the validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for IGD (SCI-IGD) was examined using a community sample of adults. Second, the diagnostic accuracy of the nine IGD criteria proposed in the DSM-5 was evaluated. A total of 99 adults participated in this study, and the administration of SCI-IGD was individually conducted, and self-report measures such as the Perceived Daily Stress Scale (on daily life and self), Brief Symptoms Inventory, and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale were also carried out. The results were as follows: 1) Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the SCI-IGD has good construct validity; and 2) 2PL-IRT showed that the “deception” and “escape” criteria have relatively low discrimination accuracy, and the probability of fulfilling “tolerance” criteria was lowest among the nine diagnostic criteria. Implications and suggestions for the future research were discussed.","PeriodicalId":115450,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"인터넷 게임장애 구조적 면담검사(Structured Clinical Interview for Internet Gaming Disorder, SCI-IGD) 타당화 및 DSM-5 진단준거의 진단적 유용성 검증\",\"authors\":\"조성훈, 권정혜\",\"doi\":\"10.15842/kjcp.2016.35.4.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The inclusion of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) in the DSM-5 appendix has facilitated research on the development and validation of assessment tools of IGD. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, the validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for IGD (SCI-IGD) was examined using a community sample of adults. Second, the diagnostic accuracy of the nine IGD criteria proposed in the DSM-5 was evaluated. A total of 99 adults participated in this study, and the administration of SCI-IGD was individually conducted, and self-report measures such as the Perceived Daily Stress Scale (on daily life and self), Brief Symptoms Inventory, and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale were also carried out. The results were as follows: 1) Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the SCI-IGD has good construct validity; and 2) 2PL-IRT showed that the “deception” and “escape” criteria have relatively low discrimination accuracy, and the probability of fulfilling “tolerance” criteria was lowest among the nine diagnostic criteria. Implications and suggestions for the future research were discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":115450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15842/kjcp.2016.35.4.011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15842/kjcp.2016.35.4.011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将网络游戏障碍(IGD)纳入DSM-5附录促进了对IGD评估工具的开发和验证的研究。这项研究的目的是双重的。首先,使用成人社区样本检验了IGD结构化临床访谈(SCI-IGD)的有效性。其次,评估了DSM-5中提出的9个IGD诊断标准的诊断准确性。本研究共99名成人参与,对SCI-IGD进行单独给药,并进行自我报告测量,如感知日常压力量表(日常生活和自我)、简短症状量表和情绪调节困难量表。结果表明:1)验证性因子分析表明SCI-IGD具有良好的构念效度;2) 2PL-IRT结果显示,“欺骗”和“逃避”诊断标准的识别准确率较低,“容忍”诊断标准的满足概率最低。最后讨论了未来研究的意义和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
인터넷 게임장애 구조적 면담검사(Structured Clinical Interview for Internet Gaming Disorder, SCI-IGD) 타당화 및 DSM-5 진단준거의 진단적 유용성 검증
The inclusion of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) in the DSM-5 appendix has facilitated research on the development and validation of assessment tools of IGD. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, the validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for IGD (SCI-IGD) was examined using a community sample of adults. Second, the diagnostic accuracy of the nine IGD criteria proposed in the DSM-5 was evaluated. A total of 99 adults participated in this study, and the administration of SCI-IGD was individually conducted, and self-report measures such as the Perceived Daily Stress Scale (on daily life and self), Brief Symptoms Inventory, and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale were also carried out. The results were as follows: 1) Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the SCI-IGD has good construct validity; and 2) 2PL-IRT showed that the “deception” and “escape” criteria have relatively low discrimination accuracy, and the probability of fulfilling “tolerance” criteria was lowest among the nine diagnostic criteria. Implications and suggestions for the future research were discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信