| Title |
Assessment of the Italian Version of the Internet Disorder Scale (IDS-15)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11469-017-9823-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucia Monacis, Maria Sinatra, Mark D. Griffiths, Valeria de Palo |
| Abstract |
Much research has focused on the validation of psychometric tools assessing Internet addiction. One of the newest measures is the Internet Disorder Scale (IDS-15) based on the modified IGD criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This study aimed at investigating the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the IDS-15 by examining the construct and the concurrent and the criterion-related validity and by identifying the taxonomy and the patterns of Internet users. A sample of 471 participants (Mage = 24.72 years, SD = 8.66; 256 males) was recruited from secondary schools, universities, and gaming halls. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the four-dimensional second-order structure and the three levels of the measurement invariance across gender. The reliability and the validity of the scale were confirmed, and the LPAs provided four classes of Internet users on the basis of the scores obtained in all four dimensions of the scale. The psychometric robustness of the Italian version of the IDS-15 was clearly demonstrated. Cross-cultural research should expand and generalize the present findings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,750,302
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
#143
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,800
of 332,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.