| Literature DB >> 28264590 |
Anise M S Wu1, Mark H C Lai2, Shu Yu1, Joseph T F Lau3,4, Man-Wai Lei1.
Abstract
Background and aims Internet gaming disorder (IGD) imposes a potential public health threat worldwide. Gaming motives are potentially salient factors of IGD, but research on Chinese gaming motives is scarce. This study empirically evaluated the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Motives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (C-MOGQ), the first inventory that measures seven different gaming motives applicable to all type of online games. We also investigated the associations between various gaming motives and IGD symptoms among Chinese gamers. Methods Three hundred and eighty-three Chinese adult online gamers (Mean age = 23.7 years) voluntarily completed our online, anonymous survey in December 2015. Results The confirmatory factor analysis results supported a bi-factor model with a general factor subsuming all C-MOGQ items (General Motivation) and seven uncorrelated domain-specific factors (Escape, Coping, Fantasy, Skill Development, Recreation, Competition, and Social). High internal consistencies of the overall scale and subscales were observed. The criterion-related validity of this Chinese version was also supported by the positive correlations of C-MOGQ scale scores with psychological need satisfaction and time spent gaming. Furthermore, we found that high General Motivation (coupled with high Escape motive and low Skill Development motive) was associated with more IGD symptoms reported by our Chinese participants. Discussion and conclusions Our findings demonstrated the utility of C-MOGQ in measuring gaming motives of Chinese online gamers, and we recommend the consideration of both its total score and subscale scores in future studies.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; addiction; bi-factor modeling; gaming; motives; scale validation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28264590 PMCID: PMC5572999 DOI: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Addict ISSN: 2062-5871 Impact factor: 6.756
Summary of measurement tools for gaming motives of Chinese people
| Studies | Sample | Study design | Measurement | Motive factors | Model fits | Major limitation(s) in validation process |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wan and Chiou ( | 199 adolescent gamers | Survey | Self-constructed Online Gaming Motivation Scale (19 items) | Two factors: intrinsic and extrinsic | CFA: χ2(151) = 282.37,
χ2/ | No alternative model was tested; no criterion-related validity was examined; factor loadings were not provided |
| Hu and Yang ( | 361 college students | Survey (at campus) | Motivation Questionnaire for College Students Participating in Online Games (12 items) | Four factors: enjoyment, needs to experience achievement, social interaction, and escaping from reality | CFA:
χ2/ | No alternative model was tested; no criterion-related validity was examined |
| Yee et al. ( | 645 World of Warcraft players | Online survey | Yee’s Motivations for Play in Online Game Scale (38 items) | Three factors: achievement, social, and immersion | CFA: χ2(51) = 140.88,
| Only players of a specific game were involved; no alternative model was tested; factor loadings were not reported |
| Zhang et al. ( | 1,523 university gamers | Survey (in class) | Yee’s Motivations for Play in Online Game Scale (37 items) | Three factors: achievement, social, and immersion | CFA: χ2(648) = 5,976.32,
χ2/ | One-factor model was not tested and compared with the proposed models; criterion-related validity was examined only on weekly gaming time |
| Kahn et al. ( | 18,819 Chevaliers’ Romance 3 players | Online survey | Trojan Player Typology (15 items) | Six factors: socializers, completionists, competitors, escapists, story-driven, and smarty-pants | CFA: χ2(75) = 8,478.58,
| Only players of a specific game were involved; no alternative model was tested; three factors were assessed by two-item subscales; α of two subscales was smaller than .70 |
Note. df = degrees of freedom. GFI = goodness of fit index. AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index. NFI = normed fit index. NNFI = non-normed fit index. CFI = comparative fit index. IFI = incremental fit index. TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. SRMR = standardised root mean square residual.
Model fit of the measurement models for MOGQ items
| Model | χ2 | RMSEA | 90% CI | CFI | TLI | WRMR | AIC | BIC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-factor | 324 | 3,567.1 | .162 | [.157, .166] | .811 | .795 | 2.895 | 25,469 | 26,002 |
| Seven-factor | 303 | 1,433.9 | .099 | [.094, .104] | .934 | .924 | 1.548 | 23,956 | 24,572 |
| Original seven-factor with four error covariances | 299 | 1,390.9 | .098 | [.092, .103] | .936 | .925 | 1.517 | 23,946 | 24,578 |
| Second-order CFA | 317 | 1,529.6 | .100 | [.095, .105] | .929 | .922 | 1.726 | 24,169 | 24,729 |
| Bi-factor CFA | 297 | 1,176.6 | .088 | [.083, .093] | .949 | .939 | 1.444 | 23,883 | 24,522 |
| Modified bi-factor CFA | 297 | 1,106.9 | .084 | [.079, .090] | .953 | .944 | 1.389 | 23,855 | 24,494 |
Note. df = degrees of freedom. CFI = comparative fit index. TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. WRMR = weighted root mean square residual. AIC = Akaike information criteria. BIC = Bayesian information criteria.
Standardized factor loadings for the bi-factor model
| General | Escape | Coping | Fantasy | Skill Development | Recreation | Competition | Social | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE |
| 2 | .73 | .03 | .19 | .05 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | .73 | .03 | .50 | .06 | ||||||||||||
| 16 | .65 | .03 | .64 | .08 | ||||||||||||
| 23 | .80 | .02 | .12 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 4 | .65 | .03 | .29 | .05 | .30 | .04 | ||||||||||
| 11 | .78 | .02 | .45 | .05 | ||||||||||||
| 18 | .78 | .02 | ||||||||||||||
| 25 | .79 | .02 | .41 | .05 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | .69 | .03 | .25 | .05 | ||||||||||||
| 13 | .76 | .03 | .50 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 20 | .77 | .03 | .49 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 27 | .77 | .02 | .39 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 5 | .68 | .03 | .45 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 12 | .72 | .03 | .46 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 19 | .75 | .02 | .36 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 26 | .72 | .03 | .54 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | .33 | .05 | .73 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 14 | .45 | .04 | .81 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 21 | .67 | .03 | .54 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | .68 | .03 | .48 | .04 | ||||||||||||
| 10 | .66 | .03 | .55 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 17 | .82 | .02 | .30 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 24 | .75 | .03 | .54 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 1 | .61 | .04 | .70 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 8 | .70 | .03 | .57 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | .75 | .03 | .52 | .03 | ||||||||||||
| 22 | .71 | .03 | .38 | .03 | ||||||||||||
Note. p < .01 for all coefficients.
Correlations of MOGQ factors with gaming time and PENS factors
| MOGQ Factor | Skewness (kurtosis) | Gaming time | Autonomy | Competence | Relatedness | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Motivation | 2.61 | 0.29 | .59** | .63** | .62** | .55** |
| (0.84) | (−0.49) | [.5, .67] | [.54, .70] | [.54, .69] | [.45, .63] | |
| Escape | 2.46 | 0.53 | .03 | −.10 | −.04 | −.13 |
| (1.02) | (−0.45) | [−.11, .16] | [−.21, .04] | [−.16, .08] | [−.27, .00] | |
| Coping | 3.08 | −0.09 | −.14* | .11 | −.01 | −.01 |
| (1.08) | (−0.89) | [−.28, −.01] | [−.02, .23] | [−.13, .11] | [−.16, .13] | |
| Fantasy | 2.35 | 0.58 | −.03 | .17* | .10 | .00 |
| (1.17) | (−0.79) | [−.18, .13] | [.00, .32] | [−.03, .25] | [−.15, .16] | |
| Skill Development | 2.45 | 0.37 | −.04 | .01 | .09 | .08 |
| (1.06) | (−0.68) | [−.18, .09] | [−.12, .16] | [−.03, .21] | [−.04, .22] | |
| Recreation | 3.69 | −0.67 | .09 | .26** | .14** | −.04 |
| (0.94) | (−0.13) | [−.02, .21] | [.18, .35] | [.05, .24] | [−.14, .07] | |
| Competition | 2.34 | 0.45 | .03 | .00 | .29** | −.04 |
| (1.11) | (−0.83) | [−.12, .17] | [−.14, .12] | [.17, .42] | [−.16, .09] | |
| Social | 2.19 | 0.58 | .22** | .10* | .20** | .43** |
| (1.14) | (−0.69) | [.10, .33] | [.00, .20] | [.11, .31] | [.33, .52] |
Note. Item 4 was included in both the Coping and the Recreation subscale; Item 18 was excluded from the Coping scale. The numbers in square brackets are 95% confidence intervals obtained using bootstrapping with 2,000 bootstrap samples.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Figure 1.The standardized mean estimates of the eight MOGQ latent factors for participants with DSM score above and below the cutoff. For identification purposes, the sum of each pair of means is constrained to be zero, with the pooled standard deviation equal to one, so that the differences between the two groups can be interpreted as Cohen’s d effect size