Measurement of internet addiction: An item response analysis approach

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 464-468

  Zhang, Jiahui ^a   Xin, Tao ^a  

^a BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASIAN; CHINA; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ASIAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; BEHAVIOR, ADDICTIVE; CHINA; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STUDENTS;

EID: 84879113917     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0525     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Chinese Internet Network Information Center. (2011). 28th China Internet development statistics report. www.cnnic .net.cn/dtygg/dtgg/201101/t20110118- 20250.html (accessed Jul. 2011)
2. Chou C, Hsiao M. Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: the Taiwan college students' case. Computers and Education 2000; 35:65-80.
3. Moore D. (1995). The emperor's virtual clothes: the naked truth about the Internet culture. Alogonquin, NC: Chapel Hill.
4. Goldberg I. (1996). Internet Addiction Disorder. www .rider.edu/suler/ psycyber/supportgp.html (accessed Aug. 1996)
5. Young KS. A case that breaks the stereotype. Psychological Reports 1996; 79:899-902.
6. Young KS. (1999). Internet addiction: symptoms, evaluation, and treatment. In: VandeCreek L, Jackson T, eds. Innovations in clinical practice: a source book (Vol. 17). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press, pp. 19-31.
7. Davis RA. A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior 2001;17:187-195.
8. Beard K, Wolf E. Modification in the proposed diagnostic criteria for internet addiction. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 2001; 4:377-383.
9. Scherer K. College life online: healthy and unhealthy Internet use. Journal of College Student Development 1997; 38:655-665.
10. Hall A, Parsons J. Internet addiction: college student case study using best practices in cognitive behavior therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 2001; 23:312-327.
11. Young KS. (1996). Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Paper presented at the 104 American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada
12. Grohol JM. Too much time online: Internet addiction or healthy social interactions? Cyberpsychology and Behavior 1999; 2:395-401.
13. Young KS. (1998) Caught in the Net: how to recognize the signs of Internet addiction -and a winning strategy for recovery. New York: Wiley, pp. 257-258.
14. Chen S, Weng L, Su Y, et al. Development of a chinese Internet addiction scale and its psychometric study. Chinese Journal of Psychology 2003; 45:279-294.
15. Bai Y, Fan F. A Study on the Internet dependence of college students: the revising and applying of a measurement. Psychological Development and Education 2005; 4:99-104.
16. Widyanto L, McMurran M. The psychometric properties of the Internet addiction test. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 2004; 7:443-450.
17. Widyanto L, Griffiths MD, Brunsden V. A psychometric comparison of the Internet addiction test, the Internetrelated problem scale, and self-diagnosis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2011; 14:141-149.
18. Canan F, Ataoglu A, Nichols LA, et al. Evaluation of psychometric properties of the internet addiction scale in a sample of Turkish high school students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2010; 13:317-320.
19. Embretson SE, Reise SP. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
20. Hambleton RK, Gruijter DNM. Application of item response models to criterion-referenced test item selection. Journal of Educational Measurement 1983; 20:355-367.
21. Christakis D, Moreno, M, Jelenchick L, et al. Problematic internet usage in US college students: a pilot study. BMC Medicine 2011; 9:77-82.
22. Fletcher RB, Hattie JA. An examination of the psychometric properties of the physical self-description questionnaire using a polytomous item response model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2004; 5:423-446.
23. Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan K. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000; 78:350-365.
24. Mokken RJ. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter
25. van der Ark LA. Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software 2007; 20:1-19.
26. Cai L, du Toit S, Thissen D. (2009). IRTPRO: Flexible, multidimensional, multiple categorical IRT modeling [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International
27. Orlando M, Thissen D. Further investigation of the performance of SX2: an item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement 2003; 27:289-298.
28. Orlando M, Thissen D. Likelihood-based item fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement 2000; 24:50-64.
29. Lee WC. Classification consistency and accuracy for complex assessments using item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement 2010; 47:1-17.
30. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Dortrecht: Kluwer
31. Irwin DE, Stucky B, Langer MM, et al. An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research 2010; 19:595-607.
32. Weiser EB. The functions of Internet use and their social and psychological consequences. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 2001; 4:723-743