MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909881866 · doi:10.1002/mpr.1765

Development of a short form of the compulsive internet use scale in <scp>Switzerland</scp>

2019· article· en· W2909881866 on OpenAlexaff
Gerhard Gmel, Yasser Khazaal, Joseph Studer, Stéphanie Baggio, Simon Marmet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersBundesamt für Gesundheit
KeywordsMeasurement invarianceOrdinal ScaleMetric (unit)StatisticsScale (ratio)PopulationSample (material)PsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisItem response theoryMathematicsClinical psychologyPsychometricsMedicineGeographyStructural equation modelingCartographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to develop a short form of the compulsive internet use scale (CIUS), which can be used in multitopic and general population health surveys and is invariant across different sexes, linguistic regions, and ages. METHODS: Two general population surveys from 2013 and 2015 were used as learning (n = 1,371) and validation samples (n = 1,550), respectively. Reducing items from the original CIUS was based on the following: (a) correlated errors between items, (b) differential item functioning, and (c) measurement invariance. Methods used item response theory and latent confirmatory factor analysis for ordinal variables. RESULTS: The eight-item short form maintained the five dimensions of the original scale and was metric and mostly scale invariant for sex, region, and age. It fell marginally short of scale invariance (ΔCFI < 0.01) for regions in the learning sample and for sexes in the validation sample (both ΔCFI = 0.013, p < 0.01). Root mean square error of approximation was 0.045 and 0.036, and comparative fit index was 0.989 and 0.995, in the learning and validation samples, respectively, showing excellent fit of the model to data. Correlations with the full scale were r = 0.966 (learning) and r = 0.969 (validation). CONCLUSION: If the full 14-item CIUS is a valid, reliable screening instrument, then the short eight-item form is too, and can be used in multitopic, general population health surveys.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.407 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207