4.6 Article

The Japanese version of the Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2): Psychometric evaluation and analysis of the theoretical model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273895

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for The Promotion of Science [20K13821, 19H00518, 21H02849]
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [21dm0307102h0003]
  3. Smoking Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the Japanese version of GPIUS2 has good psychometric properties, and the theoretical model of the original GPIUS2 is applicable to Japanese adults.
Background The Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2) is a self-administered questionnaire that evaluates problematic internet use (PIU) from a multidimensional perspective. We analysed the psychometric properties and adequacy of the theoretical model of Japanese version of the GPIUS2. Methods This study included 291 healthy Japanese adults (median age = 25 years; interquartile range 22-43 years; 128 women) who completed the GPIUS2 and several other questionnaires evaluating the degree of PIU, self-esteem, depression, and impulsivity. Results Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed a similar factor structure between the original and Japanese versions of the GPIUS2, with only minor differences in item composition. Higher-order confirmatory factor analyses revealed a good overall fit for the factorial model suggested by EFA, indicating adequate construct validity. The model showed acceptable internal consistency. Partial correlation analyses between GPIUS2 and other measures, with age as a control variable, revealed good convergent validity. Finally, structural equation modelling showed a good fit to the data, supporting the cognitive-behavioural model of Caplan (2010). Conclusions The Japanese version of the GPIUS2 has good psychometric properties and the theoretical model of the original GPIUS2 is applicable to Japanese adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据