Search Results
screening instrument for the assessment of pathological buying symptoms . Plos One , 10 ( 10 ), e0141094 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141094 . Nicoli de Mattos , C. , Kim , H. S. , Marasaldi , R. F. , Requião , M. G. , de Oliveira , E
yet despite high public, clinical, and research concerns ( Matrix, 2014 ; Starosta & Izydorczyk, 2020 ). This study aims to close this significant gap by (1) developing a screening instrument to assess streaming disorder (StrD) based on the ICD-11
not necessarily be more productive ( Griffiths, 2005a ). Furthermore, the available measures are not clinically validated and considering the ad hoc cut-off scores and the different screening instruments and samples used in the studies, scholars have
screening instruments, such as the SCS ( r = .64 and .61 in the paper-and-pencil and online group, respectively) or the HBI ( r of .70 and .61), as well as other related variables, such as sexual sensation seeking ( r = .30), Internet addiction ( r = .36
. , Roberts , R. E. , & Allen , N. B. ( 1997 ). Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression among community
idiosyncratic characteristics of the two outcomes. General gambling symptoms are typically assessed with different screening instruments with inherent restrictions on scores and standard deviations. On the other hand, behavioral outcomes such as amount of money
( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ), there is no official uniform diagnostic criteria to date. Currently, the most widely used screening instruments for MPA include the Mobile Phone Addiction Index (MPAI) ( Leung, 2008 ), the Mobile Phone Addiction
, & Griffiths (2013) indicated that withdrawal is a major element of the definition of GD in screening instruments. Most gamers assessed by Ko et al. (2014) declared that they could not abstain from gaming for several days. A study demonstrated that 88% of
). When answering the questions, respondents were asked to think of the previous 3 months. CES-D is not designed to diagnose clinical depression, but it is a valid screening instrument to assess depressive mood and emotional suffering. The validity of the
Abstract
Background and aims
Problematic exercise (PE) has mainly been assessed with self-report instruments. However, summarized evidence on the reliability of the scores derived from such instruments has yet to be provided. The present study reports a reliability generalization meta-analysis of six well-known self-report measures of PE (Commitment to Exercise Scale, Compulsive Exercise Test, Exercise Addiction Inventory, Exercise Dependence Questionnaire, Exercise Dependence Scale, and Obligatory Exercise Questionnaire).
Methods
Pooled effect sizes were computed using a random-effect model employing a restricted maximum likelihood estimation method. Univariable and multivariable meta-regressions analyses were employed for testing moderator variables.
Results
Data retrieved from 255 studies (741 independent samples, N = 254,174) identified three main groups of findings: (i) pooled alpha values that, ranging from 0.768 to 0.930 for global scores and from 0.615 to 0.907 for subscale scores, were found to be sensitive to sociodemographic and methodological characteristics; (ii) reliability induction rates of 47.58%; and (iii) the virtually non-existent testing of the assumptions required for the proper applicability of alpha. Data unavailability prevented the provision of summarized reliability estimates in terms of temporal stability.
Discussion
These findings highlight the need to improve reliability reporting of the scores of self-reported instruments of PE in primary studies. This implies providing both prior justification for the appropriateness of the index employed and reliability data for all the subpopulation of interest. The values presented could be used as a reference both for comparisons with those obtained in future primary studies and for correcting measurement-related artefacts in quantitative meta-analytic research concerning PE.
