Gaming Addiction Scale for Adolescents (GASA) Test

For adolescents and the adults helping them understand gaming habits, the Gaming Addiction Scale for Adolescents (GASA) Test offers a focused way to examine whether play has become difficult to regulate or has begun to interfere with daily life. This adolescent gaming addiction scale organizes reflection around attention, control, mood, relationships, and important activities. The result is a structured profile of reported gaming-related experiences, not an explanation of why they occur.

What This Assessment Explores

Questions cover preoccupation, playing longer than intended, escape, discomfort when gaming is unavailable, conflict, and neglected important activities. As a gaming addiction test for adolescents, it connects internal experiences with effects on school, activities, and relationships, while leaving causes and context open for further reflection.

Higher total scores may indicate a greater propensity for gaming addiction. Results are shown in three views:

• Total Score (7-35) reflects overall symptom severity, with Low (7-17), Moderate (18-26), and High (27-35) bands.
• Polythetic Model (0-7) applies the more sensitive rule; four or more Sometimes, Often, or Very often responses fall in Elevated risk (4-7), while 0-3 is Low risk.
• Monothetic Model (0-7) applies the more specific rule; four or more Often or Very often responses fall in Elevated risk (4-7), while 0-3 is Low risk.

Methodology and Evidence Base

The first item sets a six-month reference period, and the items use five ordered choices: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, and Very often. The total view summarizes responses on its displayed scale. The two model views instead apply their respective frequency criteria, so the same answers can be summarized in different ways.

Conceptually, this video game addiction questionnaire is consistent with Game Addiction Scale for Adolescents (Lemmens et al., 2009), the closest named instrument for its themes, but it should not be presented as a direct adaptation of that published scale. Brunborg et al. (2015) examined how core and peripheral criteria function in the adolescent measure. André et al. (2022) supplied later psychometric evidence concerning gaming patterns, gender differences, and ADHD. These studies support the conceptual context, not standardized norms for this online version.

The polythetic rule is more sensitive and is suited to population-based studies; the monothetic rule is more specific and is intended to reduce overdiagnosis in clinical practice. Recall, self-awareness, current stress, and willingness to disclose consequences can shape self-report answers, so the result is best interpreted alongside the adolescent’s wider circumstances.