Brief Description:
• Armstrong, Phillips, & Saling (2000)
• Items based on the DSM-IV substance abuse criteria
• Rooted in addiction
• With an addiction framework, the authors believe that addictive element of the Internet is the search for interactive stimulation or an escape from reality. Therefore this scale was designed to consider the extent that sensation seeking or poor self-esteem might predict higher levels of Internet use.
Versions:
• Available in English
Type of Measure:
• Self-completed
• Twenty items
• Ten point Likert scale
Target Population:
• Adult
Scoring:
• 1 = Not true at all to 10 = Extremely true
• Total sum and sums for each symptoms are totalled
Psychometrics:
Source Reference: Armstrong, Phillips, & Saling (2000): 50 participants of Internet Addiction Support Group.
• Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88
• Validity: Construct: Significantly correlated with time spent on the Internet (r = 0.76) and with the MMPI-2 Addiction Potential Scale (r = 0.30)
• Nine factors: Tolerance, Escape from other problems, Reduced activities, Loss of control, Related activities, Negative effects, Withdrawal, Craving and Introversion
Widyanto et. al., (2004): 79 participants recruited through Internet newsgroups, postongs, Internet searches (Used a six point Likert scale)
• Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.54-0.82 for the six factors
• Six factors : Salience, Excessive use, Neglect work, Anticipation, lack of control, Neglect social life
Utility for Prevalence Surveys:
• Untested but potentially good
Research Applicability:
• Potentially good
Copyright, Cost and Source Issues:
• Public domain (no cost): available in source reference
Source References:
Armstrong, L., Phillips, J. G., & Saling, L. L. (2000). Potential determinants of heavier Internet usage. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 53, 537-550.
Supporting References:
Widyanto, L., & McMurran, M. (2004). The psychometric properties of the Internet Addiction Test. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 443-450.
Strengths:
• Theoretically based perspective
Weaknesses:
• Factors differ between studies