Problem Video Game Playing
Problematic and dependence forming electronic game play was assessed with the Problem Video Game Playing Scale, or PVP. Developed in Spain with adolescents, and based on diagnostic criterion for substance dependence and pathological gambling from the DSM IV, this dichotomous scale consists of nine questions relating to problematic video game play . The scores range from zero to nine, and mirror the criterion of preoccupation, tolerance, loss of control, withdrawal, escape, lies and deception, disregard for the physical or psychological consequences, and family, school and work disruption.  

Displaying factorial validity, Salguero and Moran (2002) found the scale was psychometrically univariate and internally consistent (α =  0.69), with all 9 items contributing to the alpha score. Construct validity was drawn from correlations with PVP total scores and playing frequency (r = .64, N = 223, p < .001), duration (r = .52, N = 223, p < .001), and longest play time per session (r = .56, N = 223, p < .001). Additionally, the scale distinguished between participants who self-reported concerns about their video game playing and those who did not. T-tests revealed significantly higher PVP scores for those who answered affirmatively to the questions ‘I think I play videogames too much’ (t(220) =  -4.59, p < .001, two tailed), and ‘I think I have some type of problem with my video game playing’ (t(221) =  -3.43, p < .001, two tailed), than those who answered negatively.

The nine PVP items can be summed to provide an indication of problems associated with video game play. Some very slight grammatical modifications were made to the items to increase clarity, as the authors translation into English from Spanish resulted in some minor grammatical errors .

Social Skills
To measure social skills, a multidimensional self-report scale was chosen in order to facilitate an exploration of what particular social skills may be associated with problematic play and time spent playing online games. The Social Skills Inventory (or SSI), by Ronald Riggio was employed, which conceptualizes social competence as composed of a variety of social and communicative skills, and incorporates diverse branches of communication research . The scale is comprised of 90 questions and contains six distinct sub-scales, concerning expressiveness (sending skills), sensitivity (receiving or decoding skills) and control (or appropriateness), and spanning both social (verbal) and emotional (non-verbal) communication domains.

All sub-scales have a large base of discriminant and convergent validity with numerous communication skills scales and personality scales, allowing for the identification of similar constructs to any sub-scales that emerge as important in the present study. SSI scores have predicted laboratory tests of emotional recognition, measures of psychopathology, and interrater scores of role playing and social skills . The SSI sub scales have shown acceptable test-retest reliability, with scores ranging from .81 to point .96, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .65 to .88 .

To help overcome validity threats inherent to a self-report measure of social skills, including the possible response bias of social desirability, some questions are asked from both a self-perspective (i.e. – ‘I am…’ or ‘I’ve been…’) and a social feedback perspective (i.e. ‘I’ve been told that…’), and many items are reverse scored. It also has a large amount of convergent and discriminant validity, showing predictable relationships to numerous skill based emotional and personality measures. The SSI is published by Mindgarden and available for purchase, therefore permission to use the SSI was obtained via email from one of the authors, Ronald Riggio.

Questions are responded to using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1-5, or ‘Not at all like me’, ‘A little like me’, ‘Like me’, ‘Very much like me’, and ‘Exactly like me’ respectively. Scores on each subscale range from 15-75. The six subscales in the SSI, with brief descriptions and example questions paraphrased from Riggio (1986, p. 651) are as follows :

Emotional Expressivity (or EE) : Emotional expressivity refers to general skill in nonverbal sending…this dimension reflects individuals’ ability to express, spontaneously and accurately, felt emotional states as well as the ability to nonverbally express attitudes and cues of interpersonal orientation.

Example Items – “I often laugh out loud”, and “My facial expression is generally neutral” (reverse scored).

Emotional Sensitivity (or ES) : Emotional sensitivity refers to general skill in receiving and decoding the nonverbal communication of others. As such, it is closely related to nonverbal sensitivity as defined by Rosenthal …Individuals high in ES are concerned with and vigilant in observing the nonverbal emotional cues of others.

Example Items – “I am easily able to give a comforting hug or touch someone who is distressed”, and “I am often told that I am a sensitive, understanding person”

Emotional Control (or EC) : The general ability to control and regulate emotional and nonverbal displays is referred to as EC. The individual high in EC is likely to be a good emotional actor, able to pose emotions on cue, and able to use conflicting emotional cues to mask felt emotional states (i.e. laughing appropriately at a joke; putting on a cheerful face to cover sadness).

Example Items – “I am very good at maintaining a calm exterior even if I am upset”, and “I usually adapt my ideas and behaviour to the group I happen to be with at the time”.

Social Expressivity (or SE) : Social expressivity refers to a general verbal speaking skill and an ability to engage others in social interaction. Persons high in SE appear outgoing and gregarious because of their ability to initiate conversations with others.

Example Items – “I love to socialize” and “I always mingle at parties”

Social Sensitivity (or SS) : The ability to decode and understand verbal communication and general knowledge of the norms governing appropriate social behaviour is termed SS. Socially sensitive individuals are attentive to others (i.e., good watchers and listeners). Because of their knowledge of social norms and rules, persons high in SS may become over concerned with the appropriateness of their own behaviour and the behaviour of others.

Example Items – “I’m generally concerned about the impression I’m making on others”, and “Sometimes I think that I take things other people say to me too personally”

Social Control (or SC) : Social control refers to a general skill in social self-presentation. Individuals high in SC are tactful, socially adept, and self-confident. Persons high in SC are skilled at acting…Consequently they are able to adjust personal behaviour to fit with what they consider to be appropriate to any given social situation.

Example Items – “I can be comfortable with all types of people - young and old, rich and poor”, and “When I’m with a group of friends, I am often the spokesperson for the group”

Self Esteem
Global self esteem refers to one’s attitude towards oneself, and particularly how favourable or unfavourable this attitude is (Rosenberg, 1967). Measures of global self esteem have been related to many psychological constructs, including psychosocial health, mood disorders and quality of life, across time and a range of cultural backgrounds (Choi, Meininger & Robers, 2006). To measure global self esteem the Rosenberg 13 Item Self Esteem Scale (or RSES) was employed (Rosenberg, 1967). The RSES was developed in America in the 1960’s, is widely used in research and has well established validity and reliability. Questions are answered on a Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. The scale is unidimensional, alternates between positive and negative direction to reduce response sets, shows strong face validity, and displays convergent validity by predicting various measures of psychosocial health.