ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023
Compulsive Internet Use Scale for assessment of self-reported problematic internet use in primary school-aged children.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of health education on internet addiction, internet use time, and social media addiction in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping research on ICT addiction: a comprehensive review of Internet, smartphone, social media, and gaming addictions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- The Effect of Internet Use on Older Adults' Executive Function: The Chain Mediation Effect of Social Participation and Loneliness.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Technical Report.Pediatrics · 2026Review
- Assessment of Hazardous Gaming in children and its dissimilarities and overlaps with Internet Gaming Disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The tremendous growth of internet use during past few decades has been primarily led by young people. Despite a plenitude of studies reporting the pros and cons of excessive internet use by adolescents, the internet use of primary school-aged children is under-researched. First, there is lack of reliable and valid cultural invariant self-report instruments for children younger than 11-years-old. Secondly, there is no consensus on whether primary school-aged children can reliably report on their internet use. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Compulsive Internet Use Scale (CIUS) as reported by primary school-aged children in three different countries/regions. Methods: Paper-pencil format CIUS questionnaires were completed by a total of 691 children aged 8 to 10 years old, 236 of them Latvian, 207 Lithuanian, and 248 Taiwanese, as well as by one of their parents, at two-time points, separated by a one-year interval. The parents also reported on the child's emotional and behavioral difficulties. Methods: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that for the child self-report, a 10-item CIUS showed the best fit and good psychometric properties: solid structural validity; very good internal consistency; appropriate stability and predictive validity after 1 year; as well as sound sensitivity and specificity when compared to the 14-item CIUS parent-report form. Child self-report CIUS ratings correlated with time online reported by the child and parent and with emotional and behavioral problems reported by the parent. Discussion: This study indicates that children as young as 8-10 years old can reliably and consistently provide valuable information on their problematic use of the internet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.