So you wonder how “Internet Addiction Disorder” is faring these days? The recent research is no more persuasive. We recently received a copy of a newsletter published by one of the proponents of this disorder, which noted,
The CyberPsychology & Behavior Journal has been a wonderful academic journal and resource for those in the online psychology field. As many of you may know, articles focus on ways that virtual reality can be used in psychotherapy, experiments in digital literacy, to articles on online dependencies and Internet addiction. In the August issue, a new study conducted at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom completed a validation test of Young’s Internet Addiction Scale.
The exact reference is: The Psychometric Properties of the Internet Addiction Test by L. Widyanto and M. Murran, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2004, pp. 443-450.
Of course, they failed to mention what the researchers actually found in their study. So we took a look at it…
First, the researchers note how they obtained their sample, but not how the study was advertised online. Was it, “Take this study and help in Internet addiction research” or “Take this study to help us measure people’s Internet usage”?? The form of the question relates directly to the bias in your sample population. I’m not sure how this ever got through peer-review missing this information (and the fact that I sit on this journal’s editorial board isn’t helpful!). As the study’s authors note in their discussion section, regardless of how the sample was obtained, it remains self-selecting and biased. That means the entire study’s results and conclusions need to be taken with a healthy and large grain of salt, because it could be that what the researchers measured was unique to this unique population they asked.
Despite having seven different methods for obtaining subjects online, the researchers only managed to come up with 92 responses in 7 weeks. Compared to other research that uses online samples, that is a small number. The sample was also inexplicably skewed toward females (66.3%), which is unrepresentative of the Internet population in general. Also of particular interest for our purposes, nearly 60% of the sample size used the Internet for their profession. (From someone who uses the Internet in my profession, I can assure you my responses to such a questionnaire are not going to be anything like the general population’s!)
Getting to the heart of the study, validating the psychometric properties of the standard measure of this disorder, the Internet Addiction Test (which, I’d like to remind readers, was simply created by adopting the criteria for “compulsive gambling” and swapping out a few words). The researchers discovered six factors in the test, each measuring a different aspect of the purported disorder. Only one of those six factors, however, accounts for the majority of the variance in the test. Typically when designing a valid psychometric instrument, you look for your factors to be equally weighted as much as possible. This means that five items on the test (out of 20) can arbitrarily tag you as “addicted” to the Internet. Not good.
Two other findings of interest from this study are noted. One is the confirmation of a previous finding “which indicates that users who had only started using the Internet were neglecting their social lives more compared to longer term users” (something I theorized back in 1999). Second, no correlation was found between the interactivity of an Internet function and addictiveness of that function (contradicting earlier research).
As a side-note, I always find it interesting when researchers find something that disagrees with previous research, they immediately blame their sample size or sampling techniques. But they don’t mention those same problems when discussing findings that correlate positively with other research. Unless you’ve specifically tested or accounted for it, research sampling problems and sample size problems affect both positive and negative results in the same manner. You cannot ignore the problems for data that are agreeable and then emphasize the problems for data that are disagreeable.
The Internet Addiction Test, as it stands today, is not a valid psychometric instrument. First published in a book (not in a peer-reviewed journal), it is not surprising that this instrument cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. It has issues both with reliablity and validity at present. Anybody who has taken this test and assumed it meant they were indeed “addicted” to the Internet should seriously reconsider the proposition and the label. It is not a recognized mental disorder, and the research is still very much out as to whether it ever will be.
(15 votes, average: 3.87 out of 5)
Loading ...You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
13 Comments to
“More Spin on “Internet Addiction Disorder””
Much ado, I’d say…
You’re an addict when you say you are, is what we say in the meetings. Is it screwing up your life?
How bad are the consequences? Is the time you’re spending on the internet causing you problems in other areas of your life? Can you stop if you want to?
I’m not familiar with the “Internet Addiction Test” but my experience has been that you have to decide for yourself whether you believe some part of your behaviour has become problematic. The fact that someone else thinks you have a problem, regardless of how valid or invalid the testing instrument, is not likely to have any impact on whether you decide to make changes.
Don’t forget to go outside. It’s a beautiful world out there!
– greg
i want to know treatments of internet addiction.
can you tell me ?
my comment is that internet service is a addiction because our young society today is looking at entirely too much on the web site they go to like pornography and and adult sites or violent website that could cause behavior problems or be a problematic but my situation is that parent’s should have parental controls over what the kids do and what web site that they go to.
I’m a student doing a Technical Report about (IAD) and it’s impact on the GLBT community. I understand addiction and 12 step programs from personal experience. My struggle with this report revolves around connecting Internet Addiction Disorder, (Gay Lesbian Bisexual & Transgender people), and effective treatments available. Historically, IAD is new but in relation to the GLBT subculture; why are they susceptible and what kind of treatment is most beneficial to those who kind solace in anonimity?? HELP ME DR. GROHOL!!!!
I would lke to know what is the cure for internet addictions?
Check out http://www.CarlJungTypes.com and you will see that an internet addiction is not possible but there is an addiction vulnerability in the psychological profile of the World Wide Web. They have it all explained in their article “The Psychology of the World Wide Web”.
Interesting post, my family is the victim of some form of sex or Internet addiction.
I just started a blog (My Wife is a Cyberslut) that gives the other side of the story. About 6 months ago I discovered that my wife of 20 years was having an online affair. And that was just the begging!
I am sharing the painful and some times humorous (in retrospect) incidents that happened.
If you get a chance, please check it out and let me know what you think.
Thanks
The usage of internet is increasing day by day especially in young generations. As all teens, my son spent too much time surfing the web. He was absolutely “addicted” to the Internet some time ago. Luckily, my friend advised me parental control software Ez Internet Timer http://www.internettimer.net/ Internet timer is the only possible way that I know of to stop my child from going on of the internet.
Thank you Stefan, I just downloaded Ez Internet Timer from their website http://www.internettimer.net, that is exactly what I was looking for a long time. I have Windows Vista 64-bit and not too many programs support it. This one works just perfect. One of the most favorite features is the ability to set browsing and messaging timers separately from emails.
This is the most self-deceptive page I have ever read, so if you are an addict but you say you are not the problem is solved? This page is intended to make the addictive person find accept his addiction as normal and is WRONG!!!
You should call the article: ‘More Spin on “ Bad Research”.
I agree with Greg Rogers, in that anyone who has the capacity to be honest with themselves knows whether he/she is an addict or not, and you don’t need some dumb test to help you out.
Would it not be more useful to ask yourself if you have an addiction on the Internet, rather than an ‘Internet addiction’.
The Internet is like the world, and people have an addiction in their life and world. They are not addicted to life off the Internet, or on the Internet?
I have many interests on the Internet, just like I have in real life, and this is reaL life. (there is ‘real’ life on the Internet and ‘unreal’ life, just like everywhere else.)
So, it makes a difference whether I am hanging out with a friend, or going to a casino. If I am hanging out some, or a little more than some, for some time, on PsychCentral, or going to a porn site?
My husband is addicted to the internet. He plays games till 3am and sometimes he also sings till late night. He will not get off, he met a woman on the internet and had an affair. I found out, I will not tell you how I found out. He is very sneaky, and he doesn’t tell me the truth at all. He takes off from work just to stay on his computer all day. He will not lift a finger to help me in the house. He forgets all the time, his mind is turning into mush. He has no social life, doesn’t watch the news or read the news paper. He doesn’t know what is happening in the world today.
I told him he is addicted to his computer,he is in denile.
Sept 12, 2009 2:41am EST Athenia
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 16 Apr 2005
