Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35895610›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2022

Think-aloud analysis of commonly used screening instruments for Internet use disorders: The CIUS, the IGDT-10, and the BSMAS.

Hannah Schmidt, Dominique Brandt, Anja Bischof, Silja Heidbrink, Gallus Bischof, Stefan Borgwardt, Hans-Jürgen Rumpf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hannah Schmidt1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9393-5862
Dominique Brandt1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9753-4134
Anja Bischof1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3176-3329
Silja Heidbrink1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0310-1726
Gallus Bischof1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0432-5497
Stefan Borgwardt1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0924-8478
Hans-Jürgen Rumpf1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Research Group S:TEP (Substance Use and Related Disorders: Treatment, Epidemiology, and Prevention), Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6848-920X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the constant publication of new screening instruments for Internet use disorders (IUD), little is known about their content validity. This study aimed to identify potential mismatches between the items' intention and young adults' interpretation of these items when answering three screening instruments that are commonly used in research and clinical settings: The Compulsive Internet Use Scale (CIUS), the 10 Item-Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10), and the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS). Methods: In total, 30 vocational students (50% female, age = 21.3; SD = 2.1) took part in individual think-aloud interviews. All participants were asked to report their thoughts while completing the CIUS. In addition, participants who reported online games (OG) as their main Internet activity (n = 11) answered the IGDT-10. Participants who reported social networks (SN) as their main Internet activity (n = 18) answered the BSMAS. One participant used OG and SN equally and completed both screening instruments. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and content-analysed. Results: Overall, four potential sources for errors were identified: (1) High scorings were often not congruent with the underlying diagnostic criteria. In particular, such discrepancies were found in items aimed to assess dysfunctional emotional regulation strategies and cognitive involvement. (2) Some participants were uncertain which time frame or Internet activity should be considered in their answers. (3) Long and complex items led to the building of mean values or the choice of the middle answer category. (4) Some wordings were perceived to be outdated and difficult to understand. Discussion: These findings might help to provide recommendations on how to improve screening instruments for IUD. Most important, items should more clearly distinguish between Internet use as a "normal" leisure activity and Internet use that leads to functional impairments in daily life.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveInternet Addiction DisorderVideo GamesAdultFemaleHumansInternetInternet UseMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsThinkingYoung AdultBSMASCIUScontent validityIGDT-10screening instrumentsthink-aloud interview

Identifiers

PMID35895610
PMCPMC9295229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.