Internet
Addiction: A Critical Comparison of Two
Articles
Laura Ann Collins
Northcentral
University
Abstract
With the development of multiple
ways to connect to the internet and the importance of doing so in modern life,
concerns have arisen about pathological internet use – often described as
internet addiction (IA). The body of
literature exploring concerns about IA is rapidly expanding. Conceptualization of the disorder is evolving
as researchers seek to determine the definition of IA and develop tools to
identify IA with accuracy and precision.
This article is a critical comparison of two recent research articles on
IA. The first article reviews existing scales
which measure internet addiction to illuminate strengths and weaknesses of the
scales (Laconi, Rodgers, & Chabrol,
2014) . The second article is a meta-analysis in which
the authors seek to measure prevalence of IA and link prevalence to experienced
quality of life (Cheng & Li, 2014) . Each article will be briefly reviewed. Common themes will be discussed. Finally, future areas of research will be
highlighted.
Keywords: Internet
Addiction, IA
Internet
Addiction: A Critical Comparison of Two
Articles
Over the last two decades (Laconi
et al., 2014), there has been increasing concern about internet
use. Questions regarding what is
appropriate internet use, when internet use becomes pathological, and who is
most at risk for pathological internet use have become topics for
research. Through use of Roadrunner
search engine which searches multiple research databases, the first identified
scholarly use of “internet addiction” was in 1983. The next identified scholarly use was in 1996
article when OReilly interviewed Dr. Kimberly Young and then suggested a “new
disorder” entered “the medical lexicon” (OReilly, June 15, 1996) . OReilly also mentioned that Dr. Young had
“put together” an assessment tool and used established criteria for addictions
to create/align criteria for internet addiction. However, the criteria OReilly describes as “standardized”
by Young is anything but standardized.
Instead, the structure and details which comprise internet addiction is
being debated and developed through ongoing research.
Of essential importance to this debate is understanding the
psychometric properties of the tools used to conduct the research. A tool which establishes correlation is much
different than a tool which establishes causation. Both types of information can be valuable –
but only when the researcher understands which
piece of information the tool provides.
It is for this reason that the first article selected for critical
comparison is a review of commonly used IA assessment tools..
Once tools are validated, it is then important to understand
how the tools can be useful to researchers.
The purpose of research is to understand a phenomenon, and if able, to
predict future occurrence. The second
article was selected to provide an example of use of assessment, incorporation
of data derived from the assessment into theory, and how theory can influence
understanding of phenomenon.
Further, it is important that each researcher understand the
limits of the tool/assessment which he or she uses. The researcher which does not understand
limitations of tools is at risk of too broadly applying results of research,
thereby introducing error into the body of literature. It is through integrating the information
from the first article into the second that the research can be critically
reviewed and avenues for new research may be seen.
Article One: The measurement of
internet addiction: A critical review of existing scales and their psychometric
properties. By Laconi, Rodgers, and
Chabrol
Laconi et al. (2014) determined that there was a surfeit of
IA assessment tools, but limited information about the validity and usefulness
of those tools. Therefore, they conducted
several searches of scholarly article databases in order to identify scales
measuring IA. They identified 92 papers
pertaining to IA scales. From these papers, 45 assessment tools were
identified. Seventeen scales had more
than 1 study validating the scale. Ten
scales had 3 or more studies providing validation. Each scale, if possible, was evaluated based
on published research for 1) reliability, 2) validity, and 3) factor
structure. Each scale’s strengths and
weaknesses were discussed.
Of particular interest was that the factor structure created
by factor analyses of each scale had significant variation. Per Laconi et al., the lack of factor
structure may be rooted in the lack of definition and lack of theoretical
grounding leading to “lack of construct validity” (2014, p. 196). Further, they call for a cessation in
development of new scales, with focus instead being on robust validation of
existing scales.
The scale which Laconi et al. (2014) consider the most
frequently used and the most validated was the Young Internet Addiction Test
(IAT). However, they expressed concerns
about the lack of validated cut-off scores, outdated or vague items, and the
variation in reliability based on which ethic group is being tested. They quote Faraci et al. (2013) as describing
the IAT as lacking “rigorous and systematic psychometric evaluation” (Laconi et al., 2014, p. 198). Laconi et al. call for cross-cultural
research, utilizing large sample sizes and paying special attention to the
psychometric properties of the assessment tools in order to properly validate
the tools.
Article Two: Internet addiction
prevalence and quality of (real) life: A meta-analysis of 31 nations across
seven world regions. By Cheng and Li
Cheng and Li (2014) sought to provide world-wide prevalence
data for IA through analyzing research articles from 1996 to 2012 in which the
Young Internet Addiction Test (IAT) or the Young Diagnostic Questionnaire (YDQ)
was utilized to assess for IA. They then
attempted to determine if this data correlated with experienced quality of life
as measured through national indices and The Life Satisfaction Index in order
to determine if either the accessibility hypothesis or the quality of (real)
life (QOL) hypothesis fit the data.
Cheng and Li state that as of “December 2013, approximately
39% of the world’s 7 billion people use the internet” (2014, p. 755). Rate of use per population varied between
North America at 85% and 16% in Africa.
They searched databases between 1996 and 2012, resulting in 80
acceptable articles which yielded 164 independent samples, averaging 554
participants per sample, and including 31 different nations (2014, p.
758).
They determined an IA global prevalence rate of 6%, which
they noted was 3 times higher than the global prevalence of pathological
gambling. They determined that IA
prevalence negatively correlated with decreased life satisfaction and national
income, and correlated positively with increased pollution and commute
time. These results, they posited, are
tentative support for the QOL hypothesis of IA. Limitations described by Cheng
and Li (2014) include lack of data for African nations, need for longitudinal
studies to determine incidence and remission rate, and additional determination
as to which hypothesis accurately predicts IA prevalence.
Discussion: Common Themes, Integration,
and Critical Comparison
The IAT was developed by Young in order to track what she
saw as an emerging problem (OReilly, June 15, 1996) . Since then, it has become one of the most utilized
tools to assess IA (Laconi et al., 2014).
The popularity of this test can be seen in Cheng and Li’s selection of
research articles utilizing this test. Given
that both studies analyze research conducted during approximately the same time
period, limitations of the IAT are significant.
Unfortunately, Cheng and Li do not mention this concern in
the section of their report which details limitations. Just one concern
identified by Laconi et al. (2014) is the reliability of the IAT for groups
other than Asian participants or high school students is a concern. Multiple other concerns were identified by
Laconi et al. (2014). Secondly, Cheng
and Li do not discuss limitations of the assessment tools which are self-report
instruments. Finally, Cheng and Li do
not detail the primary assumption upon which their research is based… namely
that Young’s conceptualization of IA is accurate. However, OReilly (June 15, 1996) detailed
Young’s process of development of IA criteria as taking the criteria for
substance addiction and substituting the word internet for substance.
Cheng and Li’s method of determining IA structure
presupposes that IA is identical in structure to substance addiction. However, Laconi et al. (2014) provide data
(factor analyses) which suggests the IAT does not comprehensively assess
structure of IA. Cheng and Li (2014) selected research which used a specific
assessment instrument, adopted the criteria for IA upon which development of
those assessments were based, and then made assumptions on analyses of the
selected data. These assumptions were
applied to two hypotheses, with the result being one hypothesis was supported
while the other was not. No discussion
of the multiple limitations of the IAT illuminated by Laconi et al. (2014) was
provided.
Conclusion
Both studies are valuable contributions to the body of
literature. Laconi et al. (2014) analyze
multiple IA assessment tools, suggest areas where the tools can be improved,
and detail strengths of the tools. Cheng
and Li (2014) analyze multiple research papers to determine global prevalence
of IA and to attempt to determine why IA might occur. Unfortunately, the articles are not equally
valuable. Laconi et al. (2014) are quite
careful to describe possible limitations of their work, limitations of the
tools, and to call for additional research.
Cheng and Li (2014) do not seem to be as careful in describing the
limitations of their work and do not describe any limitations of the tools upon
which the research they analyzed is based.
They do call for further research.
However, there is a difference between Laconi et al.’s call for research
to validate instruments (non-specific result) and Cheng and Li’s call for
additional research to further validate the hypothesis they find their data
supported (specific result requested).
When reading a research article, understanding the
limitations of the tools is essential.
When conducting research, reporting the results must include discussion
of the limits of the tools and the research should be reported. Likewise, assumptions upon which the research
is based should be delineated. Without
reporting the limits and assumptions which permeate the research, the
significance of the research is unable to be determined by the reader. This lessens the value of the research to the
body of literature and to the advancement of science.
Future research regarding IA needs to develop robustly
validated tools for assessment and consensual agreement regarding criteria and
definition of IA. Until these two
foundational items are met, research determining international prevalence is
limited in usefulness. Additionally,
future research, regardless of topic, should be careful to explicitly tabulate
limitations in order to provide the reader with information to establish
relevance and value to the extant body of literature.
References
Cheng, C., & Li, A. (2014). Internet addiction
prevalence and quality of (real) life: A meta-analysis of 31 nations across
seven world regions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking (17)
12, 755-760. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0317.
Laconi, S., Rodgers, R., & Chabrol, H. (2014).
The measurement of internet addiction: A critical review of existing scales
and their psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior, 41,
190-202. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.056.
OReilly, M. ( June 15, 1996). Internet addiction: A
new disorder enters the medical lexicon. CMAJ: Canadian Medical
Association Journal = Journal De L'association Medicale Canadienne [serial
online].154(12),
1882-1883.
No comments:
Post a Comment