Development and Validation of the Parent Proxy Measure for Gaming Disorder among Young Children (PPM-GD-YC)

Numerous self-report measures have been developed to assess gaming disorder (GD) among children and adolescents aged 9 to 18 years old, but not for children below the age of 8 years. Because young children aged 5–7 years cannot reliably complete self-report surveys, assessment should be based on parent/guardian reports. Therefore, the present study developed and psychometrically evaluated a new instrument, the Parent Proxy Measure for Gaming Disorder Among Young Children (PPM-GD-YC). The study was conducted from June to November 2023 in Qazvin province, Iran using two-stage quota random sampling. A preliminary version of the scale was developed based on the components model of addiction comprising items assessing salience, conflict, tolerance, relapse, withdrawal, and mood modification. Construct validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Rasch analysis. A total of 5630 parents (mean age: fathers 39.0 years, mothers 34.2 years) participated. Parents reported that their children spent an average of 1.5 h daily on gaming. Six of 11 initial items were retained. The final six-item version demonstrated a unidimensional factor structure supported by EFA, CFA, and Rasch analysis. CFA fit indices were satisfactory (CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.959, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.048). Rasch analysis showed acceptable item fit (infit MNSQ = 0.91–1.16; outfit MNSQ = 0.90–1.12). Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = 0.759). However, person separation reliability was modest (0.57), indicating the scale is suitable for group-level screening rather than individual clinical diagnosis. Importantly, the construct validity evidence presented is preliminary, as discriminant validity, known-groups validity, and criterion validity have not yet been established. The PPM-GD-YC is a promising screening tool for epidemiological research and large-scale screening studies, but it should be used exclusively for group-level comparisons. It should not be used for individual clinical diagnosis without further validation against clinical interviews and establishment of cut-off scores, as the low person separation reliability (0.57) limits its capacity to differentiate individuals reliably. Individual scores should be interpreted with extreme caution, and future research should prioritize establishing discriminant, known-groups, and criterion validity, as well as developing a longer version to improve person separation reliability.