Examining the Application of the DC-IA-A Diagnostic Criteria for Internet Addiction Disorder in At-Risk College Students

• Published in: Psychopathology 2015-12, Vol.48 (6), p.408-416
• Main Authors: Hsu, Wen-Yu, Chang, Shan-Mei, Chiu, Nan-Ying, Lin, Sunny S.J., Tseng, Yin-Hsing
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Addictive behaviors; Adolescent; Behavior, Addictive - diagnosis; Behavior, Addictive - epidemiology; Behavior, Addictive - psychology; College students; Depression - diagnosis; Female; Humans; Internet; Internet - utilization; Original Paper; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Psychopathology; Reproducibility of Results; Students - psychology; Students - statistics & numerical data; Teenagers; Universities; User-Computer Interface; Video Games - psychology; Video Games - statistics & numerical data; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0254-4962; 1423-033X
• DOI: 10.1159/000441477

Internet addiction disorder is a relatively new condition, and the criteria for its diagnosis have been developed only over the last several years. The criteria for Internet addiction remain controversial. We strive to further elucidate the clinical validity of the diagnostic criteria for Internet addiction. To test items of the diagnostic criteria for Internet addiction among adolescents, we conducted a clinical interview study of college students based on longitudinal data on their risky use of the Internet. Forty-one high-risk cases were selected from a 3-year 5-time point longitudinal survey of 716 college freshmen. We examined disputes relevant to symptoms and impairment in the DC-IA-A (Diagnostic Criteria for Internet Addiction among Taiwanese Adolescents). Of the 41 cases, 21 were diagnosed with Internet addiction via a psychiatric interview. In the Internet addiction disorder group, 23.8% of cases had a diagnosis of depression, whereas only 15.0% of the cases in the non-Internet addiction group had a diagnosis of depression. Two major criteria (A8 and A3) had low incidences in these high-risk college students and thus did not help provide a differential diagnosis between the groups. We suggest that A8, ‘excessive effort spent on activities necessary to obtain access to the Internet', should be omitted, and that A3, ‘tolerance: a marked increase in the duration of Internet use needed to achieve satisfaction', should be modified. A1 and A9 should be discussed regarding their role in the diagnosis of Internet addiction disorder. Additional well-designed studies examining the diagnostic criteria and the relationship between factors are needed.