| Literature DB >> 26400152 |
Tania Fernández-Villa1,2, Antonio J Molina3,4, Miguel García-Martín5,6, Javier Llorca7,8, Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez9,10, Vicente Martín11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The wide use of the Internet in the workplace, academic or social field, can have an impact on daily life. One of the most used questionnaires worldwide to analyse these problems is the Internet Addiction Test (IAT). Our aim was to validate a Spanish version of the IAT and analyse its psychometric properties.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26400152 PMCID: PMC4581075 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2281-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Data analysis using the Bland-Altman technique. The terms used refer to the following: Total 1 = Total score obtained in the first test; Total 2 = Score obtained in the second test; Mean = Average, SD = Standard Deviation
Items corresponding to each factor after the exploratory analysis
| Item | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Corrected item-total correlation | Alpha without item | Factor loading | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1a | Factor 2b | |||||||
| 20 | 0.29 | 0.724 | 3.161 | 14.524 | 0.608 | 0.897 |
| −0.008 |
| 10 | 0.56 | 1.066 | 2.332 | 8.511 | 0.601 | 0.896 |
| 0.035 |
| 13 | 0.57 | 0.912 | 1.942 | 7.245 | 0.598 | 0.896 |
| −0.007 |
| 11 | 0.69 | 0.967 | 1.682 | 6.212 | 0.627 | 0.896 |
| 0.071 |
| 15 | 0.50 | 0.845 | 1.892 | 6.487 | 0.664 | 0.895 |
| 0.132 |
| 12 | 0.80 | 1.126 | 1.555 | 5.063 | 0.531 | 0.898 |
| −0.001 |
| 19 | 0.31 | 0.717 | 2.774 | 11.363 | 0.396 | 0.901 |
| −0.066 |
| 3 | 0.21 | 0.667 | 4.275 | 24.174 | 0.310 | 0.902 |
| −0.127 |
| 9 | 0.63 | 1.021 | 1.963 | 6.953 | 0.562 | 0.897 |
| 0.213 |
| 14 | 1.12 | 1.290 | 1.161 | 3.750 | 0.616 | 0.895 |
| 0.346 |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.112 | 1.183 | 4.279 | 0.340 | 0.903 |
| 0.093 |
| 8 | 0.86 | 1.142 | 1.395 | 4.375 | 0.611 | 0.895 | −0.021 |
|
| 6 | 0.99 | 1.137 | 1.153 | 3.899 | 0.660 | 0.894 | 0.003 |
|
| 17 | 0.96 | 1.216 | 1.203 | 3.677 | 0.597 | 0.896 | 0.124 |
|
| 1 | 2.34 | 1.412 | 0.172 | 2.120 | 0.474 | 0.900 | −0.035 |
|
| 2 | 1.43 | 1.242 | 0.780 | 3.102 | 0.614 | 0.895 | 0.139 |
|
| 16 | 1.57 | 1.351 | 0.547 | 2.460 | 0.617 | 0.895 | 0.261 |
|
| 18 | 0.45 | 0.903 | 2.732 | 11.451 | 0.636 | 0.896 | 0.404 |
|
| 5 | 0.92 | 1.108 | 1.203 | 3.928 | 0.559 | 0.897 | 0.331 |
|
| Standarized alpha | 0.86 | 0.86 | ||||||
| Eigenvalue | 9.25 | 1.57 | ||||||
| Total explained variance | 46.96 % | 7.86 % | ||||||
The higher of the two-factor loadings are printed in bold. All of these were significant at 5 % level
aFactor 1 = emotional investment
bFactor 2 = time management and performance
Comparison of goodness of fit indices obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis
| Items | Factors |
| df |
| RMSEA (90 % CI) | CFI | TLI | WRMR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 20 | 1 | 794.128** | 170 | 4.7 | 0.093 (0.086 - 0.099) | 0.914 | 0.904 | 1.451 |
| Model 2 | 19 | 1 | 775.386** | 152 | 5.1 | 0.098 (0.091 - 0.105) | 0.912 | 0.901 | 1.482 |
| Model 3 | 19 | 2 | 594.173** | 151 | 3.9 | 0.083 (0.076 - 0.090) | 0.938 | 0.929 | 1.272 |
| Model 4 | 19 | 2 | 451.741** | 150 | 3.0 | 0.069 (0.061 - 0.076) | 0.958 | 0.952 | 1.081 |
** p < 0.001
Fig. 2Confirmatory Factor Analysis of IAT. Items 6 and 8 were covariate due to their semantic similarity. Factor_1 = Emotional Investment; Factor_2 = Time Management and Performance. All standardized estimations were significant at level 5 %
Correlation between IAT factors with other variables
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Emotional investment | Time management and performance | |
| Agea | −0.121* | −0.170* |
| Total Timeb | 0.322** | 0.310** |
| Leisure Timeb | 0.346** | 0.334** |
| Work/Study Timeb | 0.010 | −0.002 |
aAge in years
bHours per week
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.001