Commentary on Karhulahti et al. (2022): addressing ontological diversity in gaming disorder measurement from an item-based psychometric perspective

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 SOCIAL ISSUES Addiction Research & Theory Pub Date : 2022-12-15 DOI:10.1080/16066359.2022.2125508
J. Billieux, Loïs Fournier
{"title":"Commentary on Karhulahti et al. (2022): addressing ontological diversity in gaming disorder measurement from an item-based psychometric perspective","authors":"J. Billieux, Loïs Fournier","doi":"10.1080/16066359.2022.2125508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present commentary aims to extend the work conducted by Karhulahti et al. (2022), and more specifically to follow one of the research directions that they suggested but did not preregister, that is, to capitalize on network analysis (an item-based psychometric approach) to reinforce or – in contrast – to nuance the view that the four gaming disorder measurement tools that they scrutinized actually assess ontologically distinct constructs. Thanks to the open science approach endorsed by Karhulahti and colleagues, we were able to perform network analysis that encompassed all items from the four gaming disorder assessment tools used by the authors. Because of the very high density of connections among all available items, the analysis conducted suggests that these instruments are not reliably distinct and that their content strongly overlaps, therefore measuring substantially homogeneous constructs after all. Although not aligned with the main conclusions made by Karhulahti and colleagues, the current exploratory results make sense theoretically and require further elaboration of what is meant by ‘ontological diversity’ in the context of gaming disorder assessment and diagnosis.","PeriodicalId":47851,"journal":{"name":"Addiction Research & Theory","volume":"141 1","pages":"170 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction Research & Theory","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2022.2125508","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract The present commentary aims to extend the work conducted by Karhulahti et al. (2022), and more specifically to follow one of the research directions that they suggested but did not preregister, that is, to capitalize on network analysis (an item-based psychometric approach) to reinforce or – in contrast – to nuance the view that the four gaming disorder measurement tools that they scrutinized actually assess ontologically distinct constructs. Thanks to the open science approach endorsed by Karhulahti and colleagues, we were able to perform network analysis that encompassed all items from the four gaming disorder assessment tools used by the authors. Because of the very high density of connections among all available items, the analysis conducted suggests that these instruments are not reliably distinct and that their content strongly overlaps, therefore measuring substantially homogeneous constructs after all. Although not aligned with the main conclusions made by Karhulahti and colleagues, the current exploratory results make sense theoretically and require further elaboration of what is meant by ‘ontological diversity’ in the context of gaming disorder assessment and diagnosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对Karhulahti等人(2022)的评论:从基于项目的心理测量角度解决游戏障碍测量中的本体多样性
本评论旨在扩展Karhulahti等人(2022)的工作,更具体地说,遵循他们提出但没有预先记录的研究方向之一,即利用网络分析(一种基于项目的心理测量方法)来加强或-相反-细微差别的观点,即他们仔细审查的四种游戏障碍测量工具实际上评估了本体论上不同的结构。感谢Karhulahti和同事支持的开放科学方法,我们能够进行网络分析,包括作者使用的四种游戏障碍评估工具中的所有项目。由于所有可用项目之间的联系密度非常高,所进行的分析表明,这些工具并不可靠地区分,它们的内容强烈重叠,因此测量的基本上是同质的结构。尽管与Karhulahti及其同事的主要结论不一致,但目前的探索性结果在理论上是有意义的,需要进一步阐述游戏障碍评估和诊断背景下的“本体论多样性”的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.90%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Since being founded in 1993, Addiction Research and Theory has been the leading outlet for research and theoretical contributions that view addictive behaviour as arising from psychological processes within the individual and the social context in which the behaviour takes place as much as from the biological effects of the psychoactive substance or activity involved. This cross-disciplinary journal examines addictive behaviours from a variety of perspectives and methods of inquiry. Disciplines represented in the journal include Anthropology, Economics, Epidemiology, Medicine, Sociology, Psychology and History, but high quality contributions from other relevant areas will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Can ‘justified disapproval’ be separated from addiction stigma? An empirical focus is required Do older adults drink alcohol whilst taking alcohol-interactive medication? Prevalence and ten-year mortality risk: findings from the UK Whitehall II cohort study Ambulatory assessment to advance the science of nondrug reward in addiction and recovery Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care utilization for commercial and Medicaid beneficiaries with opioid use disorder Does the lived experience of gambling accord with quantitative self-report scores of gambling-related harm?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1