This article performs a systemic review of psychometric properties of Internet Addiction Test (IAT)—the most widely used tool for assessing Internet addiction in clinic and research field. Studies measuring psychometric properties of IAT (original version) were searched through MEDLINE, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and Embase. A total of 25 studies including 18,421 subjects were reviewed in our study. Based on meta-analysis for internal consistency, the pooled Cronbach's alpha coefficient from college/university students with a single department subgroup was 0.90 (95percent confidence interval [CI], 0.89–0.91), and that from middle-/high-school students (older than 15 years) subgroup was 0.93 (95 percent CI, 0.92–0.93). According to test–retest analysis, the pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient from college/university students with a single department subgroup was high at 0.83 (95 percent CI, 0.81–0.85), along with low publication bias. Convergent validity showed correlation coefficients of 0.62–0.84, as compared with major tools. For construct validity, the number of factors is believed to be 1–2, only considering studies that followed the guidelines. IAT appears to have acceptable internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity in specific groups. To verify these values, well-designed evidence-based studies assessing psychometric properties of IAT across diverse populations are warranted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PiesR. Should DSM-V designate “Internet Addiction” a mental disorder?. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 2009; 6:31–37.
2.
ChengC, Yee-Lam LiA. Internet addiction prevalence and quality of (real) life: a meta-analysis of 31 nations across seven world regions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014; 17:755–760.
3.
PetersenKU, WeymannN, SchelbY, et al.[Pathological Internet use—epidemiology, diagnostics, co-occurring disorders and treatment]. Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 2009; 77:263–271 (Article in German).
4.
CarliV, DurkeeT, WassermanD, et al.The association between pathological Internet use and comorbid psychopathology: a systematic review. Psychopathology, 2012; 46:1–13.
5.
WangB-Q, YaoN-Q, ZhouX, et al.The association between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and Internet addiction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 2017; 17:12.
6.
SouthernS. (2013) Annual review of addictions and offender counseling: best practices. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
7.
MihajlovM, VejmelkaL. Internet addiction: a review of the first twenty years. Psychiatria Danubina, 2017; 29:260–272.
8.
KussDJ, Lopez-FernandezO. Internet addiction and problematic Internet use: a systematic review of clinical research. World Journal of Psychiatry, 2016; 6:143–176.
9.
KussDJ, GriffithsMD, KarilaL, et al.Internet addiction: a systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 2014; 20:4026–4052.
10.
YoungKS, De AbreuCN. (2017) Internet addiction in children and adolescents: risk factors, assessment, and treatment. New York: Springer Publishing Co.
11.
YoungKS, de AbreuCN. (2010) Internet addiction: a handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
12.
FrangosC, FrangosC, SotiropoulosI. A meta-analysis of the reliabilty of young's Internet Addiction Test. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering. London, United Kingdom: World Congress on Engineering, 2012.
13.
CrutzenR, PetersGY. Scale quality: alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychology Review, 2017; 11:242–247.
14.
IzquierdoI, OleaJ, AbadFJ. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 2014; 26:395–400.
15.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009; 339:b2535.
16.
RelevoR. (2012) AHRQ methods for effective health care: effective search strategies for systematic reviews of medical tests. In ChangSM, MatcharDB, SmetanaGW, UmscheidCA, eds. Methods guide for medical test reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, p4-2.
17.
McDowellI. (2006) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
GaskinCJ, HappellB. On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2014; 51:511–521.
19.
TerweeCB, BotSD, de BoerMR, et al.Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2007; 60:34–42.
20.
ReillyTJ, MacGillivraySA, ReidIC, et al.Psychometric properties of the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2015; 60:132–140.
21.
RodriguezMC, MaedaY. Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 2006; 11:306–322.
22.
HigginsJ, GreenS. (2011) Identifying and measuring heterogeneity. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration.
23.
WhitingPF, RutjesAW, WestwoodME, et al.QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2011; 155:529–536.
24.
SchuelerS, SchuetzGM, DeweyM. The revised QUADAS-2 tool. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2012; 156:323.
25.
WestonL, HodgekinsJ, LangdonPE. Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy with people who have autistic spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 2016; 49:41–54.
26.
BeggCB, MazumdarM. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 1994; 50:1088–1101.
27.
EggerM, Davey SmithG, SchneiderM, et al.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997; 315:629–634.
28.
GuanNC, IsaSM, HashimAH, et al.Validity of the Malay version of the Internet Addiction Test: a study on a group of medical students in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 2015; 27:NP2210-9.
29.
BarkeA, NyenhuisN, Kroner-HerwigB. The German version of the Internet Addiction Test: a validation study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 2012; 15:534–542.
30.
DhirA, ChenS, NieminenM. Psychometric validation of Internet Addiction Test with Indian adolescents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2015; 53:15–31.
31.
SungM, ShinY-M, ChoS-M. Factor structure of the Internet Addiction Scale and its associations with psychiatric symptoms for Korean adolescents. Community Mental Health Journal, 2014; 50:612–618.
32.
WaqasA, FarooqF, RazaM, et al.Validation of the Internet Addiction Test in students at a Pakistani medical and dental school. Psychiatric Quarterly, 2017; 89:235–247.
33.
ServidioR. Assessing the psychometric properties of the Internet Addiction Test: a study on a sample of Italian university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 68:17–29.
34.
MundfromDJ, ShawDG, KeTL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 2005; 5:159–168.
35.
KarimAKMR, NigarN. The Internet Addiction Test: assessing its psychometric properties in Bangladeshi culture. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 2014; 10:75–83.
36.
LeeK, LeeH-K, GyeongH, et al.Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Internet Addiction Test among college students. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 2013; 28:763–768.
37.
FieldA. (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
38.
TsimtsiouZ, HaidichA-B, KokkaliS, et al.Greek version of the Internet Addiction Test: a validation study. Psychiatric Quarterly, 2014; 85:187–195.
39.
WidyantoL, GriffithsMD, BrunsdenV. A psychometric comparison of the Internet Addiction Test, the internet-related problem scale, and self-diagnosis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2011; 14:141–149.
40.
MohammadsalehiN, MohammadbeigiA, JadidiR, et al.Psychometric properties of the Persian language version of Yang Internet Addiction Questionnaire: an explanatory factor analysis. International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction, 2015; 4:e21560.
41.
An GieY, SeanP. A beginner's guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 2013; 9:79–94.
42.
HawiNS, BlachnioA, PrzepiorkaA. Polish validation of the Internet Addiction Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 48:548–553.
43.
AhmadM, AlzayyatA, Al-GamalE. The factor structure of the Internet Addiction Tool with university students in Jordan. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 2015; 36:725–731.
44.
WattersCA, KeeferKV, KloostermanPH, et al.Examining the structure of the Internet Addiction Test in adolescents: a bifactor approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:2294–2302.
45.
BoysanM, KussDJ, BarutY, et al.Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Internet Addiction Test (IAT). Addictive Behaviors, 2017; 64:247–252.
46.
FaraciP, CraparoG, MessinaR, et al.Internet Addiction Test (IAT): which is the best factorial solution?. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2013; 15:220–230.
47.
TrikalinosTA, BalionCM, ColemanCI, et al.Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a “gold standard”. Journal of general internal medicine, 2012; 27Suppl 1:S56–S66.
48.
BrailovskaiaJ, MargrafJ. Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD) among German students—a longitudinal approach. PLoS One, 2017; 12:e0189719.
49.
KayaF, DelenE, YoungKS. Psychometric properties of the Internet Addiction Test in Turkish. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2016; 5:130–134.
50.
Fernández-VillaT, MolinaAJ, García-MartínM, et al.Validation and psychometric analysis of the Internet Addiction Test in Spanish among college students. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15:953.
51.
PontesHM, PatrãoIM, GriffithsMD. Portuguese validation of the Internet Addiction Test: an empirical study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2014; 3:107–114.
52.
LaiC-M, MakK-K, WatanabeH, et al.Psychometric properties of the Internet addiction test in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2013; 38:794–807.
53.
HawiNS. Arabic validation of the Internet Addiction Test. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2013; 16:200–204.
54.
Puerta-CortésDX, CarbonellX, ChamarroA. Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of Internet Addiction Test. Trastornos Adictivos, 2012; 14:99–104.
55.
ContiMA, JardimAP, HearstN, et al.Evaluation of semantic equivalence and internal consistency of a Portuguese version of the Internet Addiction Test (IAT). Revista de Psiquiatria Clinica, 2012; 39:106–110.
56.
FioravantiG, CasaleS. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Italian Internet Addiction Test. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2015; 18:120–128.
57.
JelenchickLA, BeckerT, MorenoMA. Assessing the psychometric properties of the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) in US college students. Psychiatry Research, 2012; 196:296–301.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
