IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9680-d881490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multi-Analysis of Children and Adolescents’ Video Gaming Addiction with the AHP and TOPSIS Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Armita Khorsandi

    (Injury Prevention Research Centre, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, China
    School of Public Health, Shantou University, Shantou 515041, China)

  • Liping Li

    (Injury Prevention Research Centre, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, China
    School of Public Health, Shantou University, Shantou 515041, China)

Abstract

The video game market has become increasingly popular among children and adolescents in recent decades. In this research, we investigated the Video Game Addiction Scale (VGAS) for Chinese children and adolescents. We aimed to examine children and adolescents’ prioritization on the VGAS criteria and comparative analysis of the trend of video game addiction among them. A cross-sectional paper questionnaire study was conducted on 1400 Chinese students from grade 3 (9 years old) to grade 12 (18 years old). The respondents had to complete the socio-demographic information and the VGAS test. The VGAS characteristic was prepared in 18 criteria, which was the combination of the Video Game Addiction Test (VAT), Gaming Addiction Scale (GAS), and Revised Chinese Internet Addiction (CIAS-R). Eventually, the VGAS criteria prioritization was ranked methodologically through the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method for each grade separately. Additionally, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) weighting technique was utilized to analyze the video game addiction of each grade under the four alternatives, individually. The results indicate that 3rd-grade students with some levels of addiction were the youngest who felt their life would not be fun without video games. Students in 5th grade with some levels of addiction were the youngest students who disclosed that their willingness to play video games is for forgetting their problems or feeling down. Moreover, they played video games more than before, thus, they did not sleep enough. Pupils of grade 6 reported that they played video games more than last semester. In their opinion, it is fair to play video games this much and does not need to reduce playing hours. Not getting enough sleep because of playing video games was seen in 7th graders as their first preference. 10th-grade students were the first to neglect to do their important responsibilities for playing video games. None of the 7th and 12th graders were somehow safe from video game addiction. In conclusion, playing video games can negatively affect studying, sleeplessness, getting far from society, and skipping important responsibilities for school students. Furthermore, the symptoms of video game addiction had seen at younger ages. These data provided insights for decision-makers to target effective measures to prevent children and adolescents’ video game addiction.

Suggested Citation

  • Armita Khorsandi & Liping Li, 2022. "A Multi-Analysis of Children and Adolescents’ Video Gaming Addiction with the AHP and TOPSIS Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9680-:d:881490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9680/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9680/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Tong, Lee-Ing & Wang, Chung-Ho & Chen, Chih-Chien & Chen, Chun-Tzu, 2004. "Dynamic multiple responses by ideal solution analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 433-444, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paulius Šūmakaris & Kristina Kovaitė & Renata Korsakienė, 2023. "An Integrated Approach to Evaluating Eco-Innovation Strategies from the Perspective of Strategic Green Transformation: A Case of the Lithuanian Furniture Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-33, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Taho & Wen, Yuan-Feng & Wang, Fang-Fang, 2011. "Evaluation of robustness of supply chain information-sharing strategies using a hybrid Taguchi and multiple criteria decision-making method," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 458-466, December.
    2. Faisal AlShareef & Mohammed Aljoufie, 2020. "Identification of the Proper Criteria Set for Neighborhood Walkability Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model: A Case Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    4. Chia-Hua Cheng & James J. H. Liou & Chui-Yu Chiu, 2017. "A Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations Based ANP Model for R&D Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Eglė Klumbytė & Raimondas Bliūdžius & Milena Medineckienė & Paris A. Fokaides, 2021. "An MCDM Model for Sustainable Decision-Making in Municipal Residential Buildings Facilities Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Mu-Hsin Chang & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2019. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Strategic Alliance Partners in the Green Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    7. Igor Martek & M. Reza Hosseini & Asheem Shrestha & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Stewart Seaton, 2018. "The Sustainability Narrative in Contemporary Architecture: Falling Short of Building a Sustainable Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Laura Tupenaite & Arturas Kaklauskas & Irene Lill & Ineta Geipele & Jurga Naimaviciene & Loreta Kanapeckiene & Linda Kauskale, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of the New Residential Projects in the Baltic States: A Multiple Criteria Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Vytautas Palevičius & Askoldas Podviezko & Henrikas Sivilevičius & Olegas Prentkovskis, 2018. "Decision-Aiding Evaluation of Public Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Resorts of Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Lin, Chinho & Lin, Yihsu, 2007. "A cooperative inventory policy with deteriorating items for a two-echelon model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 92-111, April.
    11. Laura Tupenaite & Irene Lill & Ineta Geipele & Jurga Naimaviciene, 2017. "Ranking of Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the New Housing Development Projects: Case of the Baltic States," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-21, October.
    12. Marija Burinskienė & Vytautas Bielinskas & Askoldas Podviezko & Virginija Gurskienė & Vida Maliene, 2017. "Evaluating the Significance of Criteria Contributing to Decision-Making on Brownfield Land Redevelopment Strategies in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Pham Ngoc Toan & Thanh-Tuan Dang & Le Thi Thu Hong, 2022. "Evaluating Video Conferencing Software for Remote Working Using Two-Stage Grey MCDM: A Case Study from Vietnam," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Nutthawut Ritmak & Wanchai Rattanawong & Varin Vongmanee, 2023. "A New Dimension of Health Sustainability Model after Pandemic Crisis Using Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader & Tarek Zayed & Hassan El Fathali & Ghasan Alfalah & Abobakr Al-Sakkaf & Osama Moselhi, 2023. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for the Assessment of Public Private Partnerships in Transportation Projects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-41, August.
    16. Lu Gan & Li Wang & Lin Hu, 2017. "Gathered Village Location Optimization for Chinese Sustainable Urbanization Using an Integrated MODM Approach under Bi-Uncertain Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-25, October.
    17. Nutthawut Ritmak & Wanchai Rattanawong & Varin Vongmanee, 2022. "The Dynamic Evaluation Model of Health Sustainability under MCDM Benchmarking Health Indicator Standards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-29, December.
    18. Michał Piasecki & Krystyna Kostyrko, 2020. "Development of Weighting Scheme for Indoor Air Quality Model Using a Multi-Attribute Decision Making Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-35, June.
    19. Kaklauskas, A. & Bardauskiene, D. & Cerkauskiene, R. & Ubarte, I. & Raslanas, S. & Radvile, E. & Kaklauskaite, U. & Kaklauskiene, L., 2021. "Emotions analysis in public spaces for urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. Qi Zhang & Hongyang Li & Xin Wan & Martin Skitmore & Hailin Sun, 2020. "An Intelligent Waste Removal System for Smarter Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-27, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9680-:d:881490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.