Submit a report

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.


 

101

Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics
Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von BonsdorffPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2022
<p style="text-align: justify;">Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “internet gaming disorder” (in the 3rd section of the DSM-5) and most recently “gaming disorder” (in the ICD-11). Their differences have not been studied explicitly, however. In this registered report, we ask: how do screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups? By using four central screening instruments, each of which represent a different ontological basis, we provide a nationally representative (N=8000) comparative “gaming disorder” prevalence (in Finland) and test three hypotheses concerning the possible multiplicity of the construct, which is currentlydiscussed as a single “gaming disorder” in medical and scholarly domains.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
gaming disorder, screening tools
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Medical Sciences, Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2021-08-25 23:08:26
Charlotte Pennington