4.4 Article

The psychometric evaluation of the Revised Exercise Addiction Inventory: Improved psychometric properties by changing item response rating

Journal

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 157-161

Publisher

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/2006.8.2019.06

Keywords

behavioral addiction; exercise addiction; exercise dependence; psychometric; questionnaires

Categories

Funding

  1. Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office [KKP126835]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI) is a short, valid, and reliable instrument used to assess the risk for exercise addiction, and has already been used in numerous published studies. The EAI contains six items, rated on a 5-point scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), which are based on the components model of addiction. The middle of the original scale (scoring 3 out of 5) reflects neither agreement nor disagreement, which conveys neutrality. However, the present authors believe that individual who provides a neutral opinion on each item (i.e., scoring 3) is a conceptual dilemma because it artificially increases the total score obtainable on the scale without yielding agreement or disagreement with a particular item. Indeed, the six items of the EAI are phrased in such way that respondents can either agree or disagree in the slightly to strongly range. Methods: This study modified the EAI from a 5-point rating scale to a 6-point one, so that it eliminated a middle neutral response. A total of 277 exercising participants completed the Revised Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI-R) and Exercise Dependence Scale. Results: All psychometric properties of the EAI-R were superior to the originally published scale. Conclusion: Considering these findings, it is recommended that scholars now use the EAI-R in the future research if they need to assess the risk of exercise addiction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available