Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Douglas A. Gentile, Hyekyung Choo, Albert Liau, Timothy Sim, Dongdong Li,
Daniel Fung and Angeline Khoo
Pediatrics 2011;127;e319; originally published online January 17, 2011;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1353
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
located on the World Wide Web at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/2/e319.full.html
e320 GENTILE et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org at CHUQ-PAVILLON CHUL on June 23, 2014
ARTICLES
Of the participants who provided con- TABLE 1 Differences Between Boys and Girls in Weekly Amounts of Game Play and Numbers of
Pathological Gaming Symptoms Reported
sent, 2998 completed a survey at time 1
Overall Boys Girls t df P
(2179 boys and 819 girls; 72.6% Chi-
Weekly amount of game play,
nese, 14.2% Malay, 8.8% Indian, and
mean SD, h
4.3% other races). Sixty students did Time 1 20.53 25.78 21.54 26.46 18.28 23.89 3.08 3010 .002
not provide identifying information Time 2 22.52 24.15 23.47 24.66 19.88 22.50 3.19 2358 .001
and were lost to follow-up monitoring Time 3 20.95 22.72 21.44 23.07 19.51 21.63 1.75 2230 .081
No. of pathological gaming
(which left 2974 participants); 2605 symptoms, mean SD
and 2532 questionnaires were col- Time 1 2.28 1.78 2.49 1.83 1.76 1.55 9.63 2695 .001
lected in years 2 and 3, respectively, Time 2 2.05 1.86 2.29 1.93 1.45 1.48 10.14 2455 .001
Time 3 1.78 1.80 1.97 1.86 1.25 1.51 8.75 2342 .001
which yielded attrition rates of 12.3%
by time 2 and 14.7% by time 3. Compar-
isons of dropouts with remaining par-
ticipants at time 3 showed no differ- gaming. Comparisons were made be- Longitudinal latent class analysis was
ences in their time 1 and time 2 levels tween the latent classes with respect conducted by using the growth mix-
of pathological gaming symptoms. At- to risk factors and outcome variables. ture model analysis in Mplus 5.21
trition was mainly attributable to ad- (Muthn & Muthn, Los Angeles, CA).
RESULTS
ministrative reasons, rather than stu- This analyzes each childs changes
dents refusal to participate. At time 1, Most (83%) of our subjects reported across time and groups together chil-
4 classes at each educational level playing video games at least occasion- dren who change similarly. Six classes
were selected to participate. The stu- ally, with an additional 10% reporting were found that t with theoretical
dents were reassigned to different that they used to play. The average predictions. Multiple criteria were
classes each year, which made track- amount of time playing was 20.5 hours used to choose the 6-class model as
ing of students difcult. Most students, per week (SD: 25.8 hours per week) at the best t. First, classication quality
however, stayed within the same time 1, 22.5 hours per week (SD: 24.2 is assessed on the basis of entropy,
schools across all 3 years. hours per week) at time 2, and 20.9 which is a standardized summary
hours per week (SD: 22.7 hours per
measure, with higher values indicating
Measures week) at time 3. Boys played more at
more-accurate classication. Entropy
The appendix describes the measures each wave (Table 1).
continued improving with additional
used. Pathological gaming was dened The average numbers of pathological classes. Second, the Bayesian Informa-
similarly to other American Psychiat- gaming symptoms reported (mean tion Criterion statistic becomes
ric Association disorders, such that at SD) were small, that is, 2.28 1.78 smaller with improved t, and 6
least one-half of the items (5 of the 10 at time 1, 2.05 1.86 at time 2, and classes were better than 5. Third, the
items) needed to be endorsed for a 1.78 1.80 at time 3. The number of bootstrap Lo-Mendell-Rubin test com-
case to be considered pathologi- symptoms reported was correlated pares the t with k classes and the t
cal.5,7,8,14,26 We were interested in exam- moderately with the amount of playing
with k 1 classes, providing a P value
ining how pathological gaming was re- time at each wave (r 0.33 at time 1,
to determine whether there is a statis-
lated to several potential predictor or r 0.35 at time 2, and r 0.37 at time
tically signicant improvement in t
outcome variables, including amount 3). Boys were more likely to play video
with more classes. The Bootstrap like-
of gaming, social competence, impul- games and to endorse more symp-
lihood ratio test yielded nonsignicant
sivity, social phobia, depression, anxi- toms at each time (Table 1). Overall,
results for both 5 and 6 classes.
ety, parent-child relationship quality, the proportions of students in our
Fourth, the classes need to t theoret-
and school performance. The ques- sample who would meet the
ical predictions, and each of the 6
tionnaires were administered in coun- 5-symptom requirement to be consid-
terbalanced order. ered pathological gamers were 9.9% classes was theoretically sensible.
at time 1, 8.8% at time 2, and 7.6% at One latent class of children t the def-
Data Analyses time 3. Boys were more likely than girls inition of being pathological video
Latent growth mixture modeling was to meet this requirement at all 3 times game players (by endorsing at least
used to determine groups of students (time 1: boys, 12.0%; girls, 4.6%; time 2: one-half [ie, 5] of the symptoms) at
who were similar with respect to their boys, 11.2%; girls, 2.6%; time 3: boys, time 1 but dropped below that thresh-
growth trajectories in pathological 9.2%; girls, 3.3%; all 2 P .001). old by time 3 (hereafter called the
e322 GENTILE et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org at CHUQ-PAVILLON CHUL on June 23, 2014
ARTICLES
TABLE 2 Signicant Differences Between Latent Classes of Gamers Who Became Pathological Gamers and Those Who Never Were Pathological Gamers
Variable Mean SE F df P Partial 2
Starts Group Never Group
Potential risk factors
Impulsivity score
Time 1 2.49 0.09 2.25 0.01 7.63 1,2427 .006 .003
Time 2 2.58 0.09 2.24 0.01 15.61 1,2234 .001 .007
Time 3 2.69 0.09 2.22 0.01 29.41 1,2167 .001 .013
Social competence score
Time 1 2.58 0.12 2.96 0.01 10.54 1,2418 .001 .004
Time 2 2.76 0.10 2.97 0.01 4.09 1,2244 .043 .002
Time 3 2.76 0.10 3.06 0.01 8.20 1,2154 .004 .004
Emotional regulation score
Time 1 2.53 0.11 2.77 0.01 5.39 1,2421 .020 .002
Time 2 2.41 0.09 2.81 0.01 17.45 1,2249 .000 .008
Time 3 2.55 0.09 2.87 0.01 11.57 1,2156 .001 .005
Empathy score
Time 1 2.20 0.07 2.34 0.01 3.90 1,2507 .048 .002
Time 2 2.16 0.07 2.34 0.01 7.38 1,2265 .007 .003
Time 3 2.15 0.07 2.34 0.01 7.57 1,2172 .006 .003
Weekly amount of video game play, h
Time 1 31.12 4.19 19.28 0.48 7.90 1,2730 .005 .003
Time 2 37.10 4.21 20.98 0.51 14.47 1,2166 .001 .007
Time 3 40.66 3.76 19.19 0.47 32.06 1,2050 .001 .015
LAN center frequency score
Time 1 1.00 0.07 0.84 0.01 5.23 1,2559 .020 .002
Time 2 1.09 0.06 0.78 0.01 27.10 1,2287 .001 .012
Time 3 1.02 0.05 0.73 0.01 31.51 1,2195 .001 .014
Problematic gaming symptoms score
Time 1 3.44 0.34 1.44 0.04 33.51 1,2481 .001 .013
Time 2 3.61 0.26 1.01 0.03 99.22 1,2242 .001 .042
Time 3 5.72 0.23 0.83 0.03 452.97 1,2155 .001 .174
Identication with game characters score
Time 1 2.25 0.17 1.96 0.02 2.85 1,2131 .091 .001
Time 2 2.15 0.15 1.77 0.02 6.862 1,1980 .009 .003
Time 3 2.30 0.13 1.67 0.02 22.07 1,1802 .001 .012
Potential outcomes
School performance score
Time 2 2.76 0.22 3.24 0.03 4.76 1,2309 .030 .002
Time 3 2.69 0.22 3.10 0.03 3.46 1,2242 .060 .002
Goal-setting score at time 2 2.73 0.10 2.93 0.01 3.90 1,2250 .050 .002
Parent-child relationship score at time 3 3.00 0.11 3.46 0.01 18.88 1,2143 .001 .009
Violent game exposure score
Time 2 7.40 0.76 3.94 0.09 20.54 1,2002 .001 .010
Time 3 7.34 0.68 3.38 0.09 33.85 1,1816 .001 .018
Normative beliefs about aggression score
Time 2 2.21 0.12 1.82 0.01 10.46 1,2282 .001 .005
Time 3 2.44 0.11 1.79 0.01 35.08 1,2152 .001 .016
Aggressive fantasies score
Time 2 2.45 0.12 1.85 0.01 26.29 1,2277 .001 .011
Time 3 2.48 0.11 1.80 0.01 35.78 1,2168 .001 .016
Hostile attribution bias score at time 3 0.47 0.04 0.29 0.01 18.06 1,2231 .001 .008
Physically aggressive behavior score
Time 2 2.17 0.11 1.59 0.01 29.71 1,2283 .001 .013
Time 3 2.35 0.10 1.49 0.01 75.08 1,2175 .001 .033
Relationally aggressive behavior score
Time 2 2.28 0.10 1.73 0.01 27.21 1,2282 .001 .012
Time 3 2.41 0.10 1.64 0.01 56.64 1,2174 .001 .025
Physical victimization score
Time 2 2.08 0.13 1.63 0.02 11.52 1,2281 .001 .005
Time 3 2.10 0.12 1.49 0.02 24.09 1,2171 .001 .011
Relational victimization score
Time 2 2.19 0.12 1.78 0.02 11.32 1,2281 .001 .005
Time 3 2.29 0.12 1.70 0.02 22.77 1,2171 .001 .010
TABLE 3 Signicant Differences Between Latent Classes of Gamers Who Stopped Being Pathological Gamers and Those Who Stayed Pathological Gamers
Variable Mean SE F df P Partial 2
Stops Group Stays Group
Potential protective factors
School performance score at time 1 2.52 0..23 3.10 0.10 5.39 1,186 .021 .028
Goal-setting score
Time 1 2.99 0.11 2.70 0.05 5.97 1,179 .016 .032
Time 2 2.75 0.10 2.76 0.05 1 1,176 NS .000
Time 3 3.02 0.10 2.77 0.04 5.40 1,167 .021 .031
Problematic gaming symptoms score
Time 1 6.05 0.42 4.95 0.19 5.52 1,198 .020 .027
Time 3 0.66 0.32 3.02 0.14 46.10 1,168 .001 .215
Potential outcomes
Empathy score at time 3 3.13 0.09 2.89 0.04 5.78 1,167 .017 .033
Impulsivity score at time 3 2.35 0.07 2.55 0.03 6.19 1,168 .014 .036
Violent game exposure score at time 3 4.43 1.07 6.72 0.46 3.79 1,165 .053 .022
Aggressive fantasies score at time 3 1.99 0.13 2.33 0.06 5.30 1,172 .022 .030
Physically aggressive behavior score at time 3 1.56 0.12 1.86 0.05 5.12 1,173 .025 .029
Relationally aggressive behavior score at time 3 1.77 0.12 2.02 0.05 3.73 1,173 .055 .021
Anxiety score at time 3 0.58 0.08 0.89 0.04 12.98 1,175 .001 .069
Social phobia score
Time 2 2.33 0.16 2.73 0.07 5.42 1,181 .021 .029
Time 3 2.21 0.13 2.70 0.06 11.16 1,168 .001 .062
Depression score at time 3 2.28 0.15 2.71 0.07 6.88 1,175 .009 .038
NS indicates not signicant.
time 3 depression, anxiety, and social phobia, R2 0.20; grades, R2 0.14; mary problem or is simply a symptom
phobia levels and poor school perfor- all P .001). of other comorbid problems. With a Di-
mance. Overall, this model ts the data agnostic and Statistical Manual of
extremely well (2 70.4, P .001; DISCUSSION Mental Disorders-style approach to
comparative t index 0.99, Tucker- denition, in which people exhibiting at
Lewis index 0.96, root mean square Although many studies have described least one-half of the symptoms are
error of approximation 0.04, stan- correlates of pathological video game considered to be pathological gamers,
dardized root mean square residual play, the present study provides between 7.6% and 9.9% of our sample
0.02). This model accounted for a sig- needed data on risk factors for becom- would be classied as pathological
nicant amount of variance for each of ing a pathological gamer, how long gamers at any point in time. This range
the outcome variables (depression, pathological gaming lasts, what the is similar to those for samples from
R2 0.49; anxiety, R2 0.29; social outcomes are, and whether it is a pri- other countries.5,3033 Knowing the
e324 GENTILE et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org at CHUQ-PAVILLON CHUL on June 23, 2014
ARTICLES
e326 GENTILE et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org at CHUQ-PAVILLON CHUL on June 23, 2014
ARTICLES
e328 GENTILE et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org at CHUQ-PAVILLON CHUL on June 23, 2014
APPENDIX Measures Used in Study
Name of Measure Variables Measured Items Sample Items Response Options and Scores Reliability
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
General Media Habits Weekly amount of video 6 On a usual school day, how many hours do you play Hours NA NA NA
Questionnaire38,45 game play computer/video games in the morning?
Frequency of visiting 2 How often do you visit game arcades or gaming Never (1) to almost always (4) NA NA NA
LAN center centers on weekdays/weekends?
Violent game exposure 4 (for each of 3 How often do you shoot or kill other players in this Never (1) to almost always (4) NA NA NA
games) game?
Identication with game 2 (for each of 3 How much is your in-game character like you in Never (1) to almost always (4) NA NA NA
characters games) real life?
Online game play 1 (for each of 3 Is the game played online with other people? Never (1) to almost always (4) NA NA NA
games)
e329
Pathological Video Game Use Among Youths: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study
Douglas A. Gentile, Hyekyung Choo, Albert Liau, Timothy Sim, Dongdong Li,
Daniel Fung and Angeline Khoo
Pediatrics 2011;127;e319; originally published online January 17, 2011;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1353
Updated Information & including high resolution figures, can be found at:
Services http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/2/e319.full.h
tml
References This article cites 58 articles, 8 of which can be accessed free
at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/2/e319.full.h
tml#ref-list-1
Citations This article has been cited by 8 HighWire-hosted articles:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/2/e319.full.h
tml#related-urls
Post-Publication One P3R has been posted to this article:
Peer Reviews (P3Rs) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/127/2/e319
Subspecialty Collections This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in
the following collection(s):
Adolescent Health/Medicine
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/adolescent
_health:medicine_sub
Permissions & Licensing Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,
tables) or in its entirety can be found online at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xht
ml
Reprints Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml