See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307526702

Development of a Measure: Internet Behaviors Scale

Article in Modern Applied Science · May 2016

DOI: 10.5539/mas.v10n7p124

CITATION READS

1 2,995

3 authors:

Samira Ranaeiy Mohammad Reza Taghavi

Shiraz University Shiraz University
6 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS 114 PUBLICATIONS 2,127 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad ali Goodarzi

Shiraz University
87 PUBLICATIONS 473 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad ali Goodarzi on 02 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Modern Applied Science; Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016
ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Development of a Measure: Internet Behaviors Scale

Samira Ranaiey1, Mohammad Reza Taghavi2 & Mohammad Ali Goodarzi3
1
Department Of Clinical Psychology, Shiraz, Iran
2
Department Of Clinical Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
3
Department of Clinical Psychology,Shiraz University,Shiraz, Iran
Correspondence: Samira Ranaiey, Department of Clinical Psychology, Shiraz, Iran. E-mail:
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]

Received: February 27, 2016 Accepted: March 8, 2016 Online Published: May 3, 2016
doi:10.5539/mas.v10n7p124 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v10n7p124

Abstract
Background and aims: Previous studies had documented that Social Networking Sites (S.N.S) has pathological
effect on its users. A multi dimension syndrome, called problematic Internet use (PIU), causing behavioral and
cognitive symptoms, which results in negative impact on different aspects of life like social, professional or
academic.
Because of increased attention to PIU, some measure had been made, but they seem to be inadequate, due to new
issue of the internet interactions. Therefore the necessity and importance of standard, valid and reliable tools to
assess PIU and the related behaviors is clear.
In a survey conducted by Morahan-Martin and Schumacher on differences between lonely and non-lonely in
internet behaviors, “Internet Behaviors scale” was used.
The paper was frequently cited as a source by different researchers, but no validity or reliability for that scale
was reported. The scale evaluates the different aspects of internet behavior which seems to be a quite helpful tool
for PIU assessment.
Method: This survey presented results of a study that evaluate reliability and validity of “Internet Behaviors
Scales” with Iranian university students. This questionnaire was completed by 156 volunteer students of Shiraz
University. To assess reliability coefficient α and test retest method was conducted. To assess validity exploratory
factor analysis and convergent and discriminant validity was conducted.
Results: Factor Analysis indicated three dimensions of this scale: social aspects, negative impact and competency
and convenience aspect.
“The internet Behaviors Scale” as the results indicate showed acceptable reliability and validity with Iranian
students.
Discussion: The internet Behaviors Scale as the results indicated could be used as a standard scale (valid and
reliable) to evaluate PIU and related behaviors. It is important that validity and reliability of this scale be
measured by other means.
Keywords: social networking sites, internet behaviors scale, validity, reliability, problematic internet use
1. Introduction
Research had documented that social Networking Sites (S.N.S) has pathological effect on its users. A multi
dimension syndrome, called problematic Internet use (PIU), causing behavioral and cognitive symptoms, which
results in negative impact on different aspects of life like social, professional or academic.
(Davis 2001; Morahan-Martia, Schumacher, 2003; Caplan 2002; Caplan, 2003)
Because of increased attention to PIU some measure had been made. But they seem to be inadequate, due to new
issue of the internet interaction, so there is a necessary for efficient tools for psychological problem in the on-line
interactions.
In a survey conducted by Morahan-Martin and Schumacher in 2003 on differences between lonely and
non-lonely in internet behaviors, “Internet Behaviors scale” was used.

124
www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

The paper was frequently cited as a source by different researchers (including the Author), but no validity or
reliability for that scale was reported. In this study we evaluate reliability and validity of this scale and by factor
analysis we will see if the suggested three aspects of this scale explain total variance acceptably. (This scale was
also used in survey that conducted by Author, titled as: “The Effect of loneliness on social Networking sites and
its related behaviors”. The article was submitted to Global Journal of Health science and the submission was
accepted).
Literature Review and Purpose
As mentioned before, efficient, valid and reliable tools for assessment of PIU increasingly needed. Preference for
online social Interaction (Leung, 2011) was measured by using 13 items based on Caplan (2002, 2003) studies,
on the preference for on-line social interaction. 5 point Likert type scale was used, 1=strongly disagree and 5=
strongly agree. Sample items included “Treated better online than in face to face relationship”, “feel safer
relating to others on-line”, “more confident socializing on-line than offline”, “more comfortable with computers
than people”, “I am willing to give up some of my face to face relationship”, “to have more time for my online
relationship” and “I am happier being on-line than I am off-line”. Reliability was as high as 0.83.
Another tool which was used in a study conducted by Caplan (2007), is Negative items used to operationalize
negative out come associated with one’s internet use, which were drown from measure employed in previous
studies (Caplan 2002; Caplan 2005; Morahan – Martin – Schumacher 2003). Participants extend their agreement
with three statements indicating that they had experienced negative outcome due to their internet use.
In that study reliability coefficient for negative out come reported α=0.70.
To assess Facebook Group use and Gratifications, respondent were given a list of 16 statements, regarding
Facebook group use (Park et al., 2009). They rated their level of agreement with specific reasons for using
Facebook groups, including: information, acquisition about campus community, entertainment/recreation, and
social interaction with friends and family, and peer pressure/self-satisfaction (1 strongly agree 6 strongly
disagree). The statement were adapted from cluster of categorized dimension, describing on-line group
participants (Lin hf, 2006; Rinding, Geten, 2004)
Addictive tendencies scale (Wilson et al 2010) based on previous research (Walsh et al 2007; Ehrenberg et al,
2008). The addictive tendencies scale (α=0.76) Compromised three items measuring level of salience: one of
first thing I do each morning is log on to a social networking internet sites S.N.S (e.g. My space or Facebook)
loss of control: (I find it hard to control use of S.N.S (e.g. My space or Facebook) and withdrawal: I feel lost
when I cannot aces S.N.S (e.g. My space or Facebook)
The measure mentioned above, were some examples of tool which are recently used for PIU evaluation.
This study attends to evaluate validity and reliability of “Internet Behaviors Scale” with Iranian students and also
and also using factor analysis to see if three suggested aspects of this scale explain total variance acceptably.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
“Internet Behaviors scale” was given to 156 shiraz university students. Of these 146 (93.6% has experienced
S.N.S use and were included in the research. 108 (69.2%) were female and 42 (26.9%) were male. The sample
included 11 (7.1%) freshmen 34 (21.8%) Sophomore, 30 (19.2%) Juniors, 6 (3.8%) seniors. 41 (26.3%) graduate
student and 31 (19.9%) PHD students participants had reported average weekly use as 18.01 hours (SD=20.38).
as mentioned earlier this scale was used by Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (2003) but no validity or reliability
for this scale was reported.
2.2 Measures
The questionnaire completed by the Participants, including demographic characteristic, S.N.S experience and
Internet Behaviors scale. (Those who had S.N.S use experience included in the survey)
2.3 Procedure
Internet behaviors were assessed by 38 Likert – type questions, the three aspects are: social aspects of S.N.S use
(19 questions), negative impact of S.N.S use (15 questions) and feeding of competency online (4 questions). A
four point scale was used. With 1 strongly disagree and 4 strongly agree. In this survey the mean ±SD for social
aspect was 36.46±9.58. for negative impact 29±9.30 and for competency online 11.06±2.09.
2.4 Statistical Analysis
For evaluating reliability coefficient α and test-retest were conducted, for evaluating validity, exploratory factor

125
www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

analysis and also convergent validity and discernment validity were conducted.
2.5 Ethics
Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with
ethical standards of institutional and national research committee with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later
amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
3. Results
3.1 Reliability
3.1.1 Coefficient α Reliability was as heigh as α=0.89 for social aspect, α=0.94, for negative impact and α=0.66
for convenience and competency aspect with Iranian students.
3.1.2 Test – Retest Method
The scale of Internet Behaviors was given to 30 Shiraz university students and after 3 weeks the same test was
conducted. Table 3-1 provides the descriptive statistics (Mean ± SD) for subscales scores. We used correlated
samples t-test to formally test whether means are similar.
A Pearson’s correlation is computed to assess test-retest reliability. Note means are similar, and this table
indicates that the correlation of the two scores (per subscale) is high and positive so there is strong support for
the test-retest reliability. See table 3-1 after the references.
3.2 Validity
3.2.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (Principal Component Method with Varimax Rotation) Was Conducted.
The results indicated three dimension (Social aspect, negative impact and competency and convenience online).
This three dimension explain 48.18% of the total variation of the scale result Presented in table 3-2. See table 3-2
after the references.
According to the second table (3-2) almost all the items are located in their dimensions. Expect these that marked
in red color. With a little neglect they could be located in their dimensions. The only item which is not in
appropriate dimension is No. 18 of social aspect, which has a preference to locate in competency and
convenience aspect. This could be due to the characteristics of our sample or the item probably should be in the
third dimension.
3.2.2 Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity
To evaluate validity of Internal Behaviors scales convergent and discriminate validity was assessed. See table 3-4
after the references.
These finding show that scaling success rate for convergent validity is 100% for all domains expect for social

aspect which is 89.4%. The success rate for item discriminant validity of internet Behaviors scale is 96.05 ( )
(this statistical Method for convergent and discernment validity is based on Fayers, 2000). As the result show
overall validity is acceptable for internet Behaviors scale.
4. Discussion
“The internet Behaviors Scale” as the results indicate showed acceptable reliability and validity with Iranian
students. The results of exploratory factor analysis indicated three aspects, social aspect, negative impact and
competency and convenience aspect, explain total variation acceptably.
5. Conclusion
A number of scholars have noted the need for standard scales to assess internet behaviors along with more
empirical evidence. The scale of Internet Behaviors could be a helpful device to evaluate PIU and its related
behaviors. It is important that validity and reliability of this scale be measured by other means. It is also
suggested that the scale, being evaluated on more diverse population.
References
Amiel, T., & Sargent, S. L. (2004) Individual difference in Internet usage motives. Computers in Human
Behavior, 20, 711-26.

126
www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and Psychological well-being development of a theory based
cognitive-behavioral measure. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 533-575.
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: a theory of problematic Internet use and
psychological we-being. Communication Research, 30, 625-648.
Coplan, S. E. (2007). Relation among Loneliness, social Anxiety and Problematic Internet Use. Cyber
Psychology & Behavior.
Davis, R. A. Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2002). Validation of a new measure of problematic Internet use:
Implications for pre-employment screening. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 331-346.
Davis, R.A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Journal of Communication, 17,
187-195.
Ehrenberg, A. Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem as predictors of
young peoples technology use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 739-41.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Assessment Analysis an Interpretation. Quality of life, pp 50-70.
Hamburger, Y. A., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2000). The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and the
different uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 441-49.
Hardie, E., & Tee, M. (2003). Excessive Internet use: The role of personality, loneliness and social support
networks in Internet addiction. Australian Journal of Emerging Technology and Society, 5, 34-47.
Lennug, L. (2011). Loneliness, social support and preference for online social interaction: The mediating effect
of identity experimentation online among children and adolescence. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4,
381-399.
Lin, H. F. (2006). Understanding behavioral intention to participate in virtual communities. Cyber Psychology &
Behavior, 9, 540-7
McEllroy, J. C. Hendrickson, A. R. Townsend, A. M., & Demarie, S. M. (2007). Dispositional factors in internet
use: Personality versus cognitive style. MIS Quarterly, 31, 809-20.
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and social uses of the Internet. Computers in Human
Behavior, 19, 659-671.
Pack, N., Kee, K. F., & Valen Zuela, M. A. (2009). Being immersed in social Networking Environment:
Facebook groups, Uses and Gratifications and social outcome. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 12.
Ridings, C. M., & Geten, D. G. (2007). Virtual community attraction: why people hang out online. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 2004(10). Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings-geten
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2007). Young and connected: Psychological influences of mobile
phone use amongst Australian youth. In: Goggin G, Hjorth L, and eds. Mobile Media 2007: Proceeding of
an international conference on social and cultural aspects of mobile phones, media and wireless
technologies, Sydney: University of Sydney, pp. 125-34.
Wilson, K., Fomasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological Predictors of young adults: use of social
networking sites. Cyberpshychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2), 173-177.

Tables
Table 3-1. Results of test – retest
Dimensions First time Second The difference between first P Correlation p-
time and second time value value
Social aspect 33.48±9.11 33.81±9.17 -.31±1.78 .378 .981(.000)
Negative impact 26.48±9.57 26.67±9.16 -.19±1.8 .597 .983(.000)
Competency and 10.78±1.94 10.74±1.77 .04±.98 .846 .865(.000)
convince

127
www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

Table 3-2. Results of exploratory factor analysis for internet Behaviors scale
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Cumulative % Total % of Cumulative % Total % of Cumulative %
Variance Variance Variance
1 13.761 36.214 36.214 13.761 36.214 36.214 7.879 20.735 20.735
2 2.362 6.216 42.429 2.362 6.216 42.429 7.863 20.691 41.426
3 2.184 5.748 48.178 2.184 5.748 48.178 2.566 6.751 48.178
4 1.795 4.724 52.901
5 1.518 3.996 56.897
6 1.309 3.445 60.342
7 1.197 3.149 63.491
8 1.127 2.967 66.458
9 1.008 2.652 69.110
10 .935 2.460 71.570
11 .872 2.294 73.863
12 .771 2.029 75.893
13 .728 1.915 77.808
14 .696 1.832 79.640
15 .607 1.598 81.238
16 .597 1.571 82.809
17 .552 1.453 84.262
18 .548 1.443 85.706
19 .500 1.317 87.023
20 .475 1.251 88.273
21 .424 1.116 89.389
22 .419 1.102 90.491
23 .395 1.040 91.531
24 .361 .949 92.481
25 .309 .814 93.294
26 .292 .769 94.063
27 .285 .749 94.812
28 .259 .682 95.494
29 .245 .646 96.139
30 .237 .624 96.764
31 .217 .571 97.335
32 .184 .483 97.818
33 .174 .457 98.275
34 .173 .455 98.729
35 .155 .407 99.136
36 .120 .316 99.453
37 .108 .285 99.737
38 .100 .263 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 3-3. Rotated component matrix

Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
c1 .638 .278 .203
c2 .676 .310 .073
c3 .672 .358 .255
c4 .569 .445 .061

128
www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

c5 .651 .406 .023

c6 .611 .413 .174
c7 .605 .284 .133
c8 .704 .216 -.169
c9 .662 .273 .032
c10 .613 .416 .250
c11 .712 .381 .057
c12 .441 .457 .226
c13 .685 .221 -.314
c14 .343 .040 .374
c15 .268 -.171 -.194
c16 .614 .284 .012
c17 .648 .269 -.283
c18 .338 .132 .460
c19 -.505 -.043 -.090
d1 .139 .529 -.113
d2 .192 .731 .025
d3 .270 .715 -.007
d4 .387 .566 .097
d5 .272 .627 .070
d6 .078 .418 -.256
d7 .300 .715 -.073
d8 .224 .784 .168
d9 .419 .480 .413
d10 .267 .569 .301
d11 .171 .642 .237
d12 .304 .600 .139
d13 .432 .553 .270
d14 .272 .683 .001
d15 .238 .710 -.083
e1 -.152 -.181 .144
e2 -.094 -.232 .702
e3 .144 .041 .767
e4 -.072 .120 .185

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations

Table 3-4. Convergent Validity and Discriminant validity of the scale of internet behaviors
Discriminant validityb Convergent validitya
Dimensions Items Range of Scaling success Range of Scaling success
correlation (percent) correlation (percent)

129
www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

Social aspect 19 0.003-0.745 0.011-0.791

(100) (89.4)

Negative impact 15 0.011-0.139 0.616-0.843

(93.3) (100)
Competency and 4 0.019-0.819 0.472-0.845
convince (100)
a- Number of correlations between items and hypothesized scale corrected for overlap≥ 0.4 total number of
convergent validity test.
b- Number of convergent correlations significantly higher than discriminant correlations Total number of
correlations

Appendix I
Scale of Internet Behaviors (Social Aspect)
1- My online friends understand me better than other people.
2- I am more myself online that in real life.
3- I open up more to people online than in other communications modes.
4- Most of my friends I know from online.
5- I prefer communication online to face to face communication.
6- I am friendlier online than in real life.
7- The anonymity of being online is liberating.
8- I have shared intimate secrets online.
9- I have lurked online but never entered a conversation online.
10- Going online has made it easier for me to make friends.
11- I have more fun with the people I know online than others.
12- I have a network of friends made online.
13- Sometime I pretend I am someone I am not while online.
14- I like the speed of communication online.
15- I prefer telephoning to communicating online. (reverse)
16- Online communication lets me control when I want to communicate.
17- I have pretended to be somebody of the opposite sex while online.
18- Being online has made it easier to communicate with people I know.
19- I feel less connected interpersonally when I communicate online. (reverse)
Appendix II
Scale of Internet Behaviors (Negative Impact)

1- I feel guilty about time spent online instead of at other require work.
2- I have been told that I spend too much time online.
3- I have routinely cut short on sleep to spend more time online.
4- I have gone online to make myself feel better when down or anxious.
5- I have use online to talk to others when I was feeling isolated.
6- I have missed social engagements because of online activities.
7- I have missed classes or work because of online activity.

130
 www.ccsenet.org/mas Modern Applied Science Vol. 10, No. 7; 2016

8- I have attempted to spend less time online but have not being able to.
9- When I am online, I feel totally absorbed.
10- If it has been along times since I last logged on, I find it hard to stop thinking about what will be waiting for
me when I do.
11- I have tried to hide from others how much time I am actually online.
12- I have gotten in to trouble with my employer or school because of being online.
13- I sometime go online to escape from pressure.
14- I have never gotten in to an argument with a significant other over being online.
15- My work and / or school performance has not deteriorated since I started going online.
Appendix III
Scale of Internet Behaviors (Competency and Convenience Aspect)
1- I avoid going online for information because there is too much to weed through. (reverse)
2- I feel competent in my ability to use online services.
3- I am comfortable using online services.
4- Going online has made it easier for me to do research.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

131

View publication stats