Submitted:
17 October 2024
Posted:
17 October 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics for the PS-6 and prevalence rates
3.2. Evidence of validity based on internal structure
3.3. Measurement invariance of the PS-6 by gender and studies
3.4. Relation of the PS-6 with different indicators of well-being and mental health problems
3.5. Study of the reliability of the scores of the PS-6
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Karadaǧ E, Tosuntaş ŞB, Erzen E, Duru P, Bostan N, Şahin BM, et al. Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. J Behav Addict. 2015;4(2). [CrossRef]
- Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Comput Human Behav. 2016;63.
- Anderson EL, Steen E, Stavropoulos V. Internet use and Problematic Internet Use: a systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2017 Oct 2;22(4):430–54. [CrossRef]
- Atmoko A, Sari IK, Da Costa A, Utami NW, Wahyuni ET. Smartphone Addiction among Adolescence Students: Its Implication toward Family Communication, Learning, Guidance and Counselling. Jurnal Kajian Bimbingan dan Konseling. 2022 Feb 3;7(1):1–9.
- Klein, V. Collective solitude: Phenomenon Phubbing. Analysis of the inappropriate use of smartphones in private and public communication. Information-Wissenschaft und Praxis. 2014;65(6). [CrossRef]
- Dwyer RJ, Kushlev K, Dunn EW. Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018 Sep;78:233–9.
- Verduyn P, Schulte-Strathaus JCC, Kross E, Hülsheger UR. When do smartphones displace face-to-face interactions and what to do about it? Comput Human Behav. 2021 Jan;114:106550. [CrossRef]
- Blanca MJ, Bendayan R. Spanish version of the phubbing scale: Internet addiction, facebook intrusion, and fear of missing out as correlates. Psicothema. 2018;30(4).
- Roberts JA, David ME. My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput Human Behav. 2016 Jan;54:134–41.
- Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. Measuring phone snubbing behavior: Development and validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP). Comput Human Behav. 2018;88.
- Hwang OK, Song MR, Myung JH. Validation of the Phubbing Scale for Mothers with Infants and Toddlers. Korean Journal of Youth Studies. 2023 Sep 30;30(9):331–58.
- Kim M, Choi J, Song Wonyoung. Validation of the Korean Phubbing Scale (PS-K). 2022;11:15–40.
- Lin CY, Mamun MA, Mamun F al, Ullah I, Hosen I, Malik NI, et al. A phubbing scale tested in Bangladesh, Iran, and Pakistan: confirmatory factor, network, and Rasch analyses. BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Oct 18;23(1):763.
- Santos A de A, Torres M de S, Santos LFN dos, Martins H de A. Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evidence of the Phubbing Scale. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto). 2023;33.
- Veysuei M, Amini M, Fattahi A, Mojarad SM. Psychometric Properties of the Farsi Version of the Fear of Missing out Scale and the Phubbing Scale. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2023 Feb 27;17(1).
- García-Castro FJ, Abreu AM, Rando B, Blanca MJ. The Phubbing Scale (PS-8) in the Portuguese population: psychometric properties. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 2022 Dec 16;35(1):7.
- Błachnio A, Przepiórka A, Gorbaniuk O, Bendayan R, McNeill M, Angeluci A, et al. Measurement invariance of the Phubbing Scale across 20 countries. International Journal of Psychology. 2021.
- Ríos Ariza JM, Matas-Terron A, Rumiche Chávarry R del P, Chunga Chinguel GR. Scale for Measuring Phubbing in Peruvian University Students: Adaptation, Validation and Results of Its Application. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 2021 Jul 15;10(2):175.
- Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1997 Jul 7;38(5):581–6.
- Ortuño-Sierra J, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Inchausti F, Sastre-Riba S. Evaluación de dificultades emocionales y comportamentales en población infanto-juvenil: el Cuestionario de Capacidades y Dificultades (SDQ) [Evaluation of emotional and behavioral difficulties in the child and adolescent population the Skills and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)]. Papeles del psicólogo [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 Feb 21];37(1):14–26. Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=77844204003.
- Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.
- Martín-Albo J, Núñez JL, Navarro JG, Grijalvo F. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and Validation in University Students. Span J Psychol. 2007 Nov 10;10(2):458–67.
- Hofmann SG, Carpenter JK, Curtiss J. Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ): Scale Development and Psychometric Characteristics. Cognit Ther Res. 2016 Jun 30;40(3):341–56.
- D’Orey Roquete M, Sáez-Suanes GP, Álvarez-Couto M, Hofmann SG. A Spanish adaptation and validation of the Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Environment and Social Psychology. 2023 Jul 28;8(2).
- Ortuño-Sierra J, Pérez-Sáenz J, Mason O, Pérez de Albeniz A, Fonseca Pedrero E. Problematic Internet Use among adolescents: Spanish validation of the Compulsive Internet Use Scale (CIUS). Adicciones. 2022 Oct 1.
- Cummins RA, Lau ALD. Manual: Personal wellbeing index – School children (3rd edn). Resource document. Melbourne; 2005.
- Ortuño-Sierra J, Aritio-Solana R, Fonseca-Pedrero E. New Evidences about Subjective Well-Being in Adolescence and Its Links with Neurocognitive Performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 13;17(6):1866.
- Byrne, BM. Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema. 2008;20(4):872–82.
- Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002 Apr;9(2):233–55.
- Smahel D, Machackova H, Mascheroni G, Dedkova L, Staksrud E, Ólafsson K, et al. EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. 2020;(February):156.
- Błachnio A, Przepiorka A. Be Aware! If You Start Using Facebook Problematically You Will Feel Lonely: Phubbing, Loneliness, Self-esteem, and Facebook Intrusion. A Cross-Sectional Study. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2019 Apr 1;37(2):270–8.
- Anshari M, Alas Y, Hardaker G, Jaidin JH, Smith M, Ahad AD. Smartphone habit and behavior in Brunei: Personalization, gender, and generation gap. Comput Human Behav. 2016;64.
- David ME, Roberts JA. Phubbed and Alone: Phone Snubbing, Social Exclusion, and Attachment to Social Media. J Assoc Consum Res. 2017 Apr;2(2):155–63.
- Vanden Abeele M, Schouten AP, Antheunis ML. The Effect of Mobile Phone Use in Co-present Situations on Impression Formation and Relationship Quality. In: ICA proceedings 2015. 2014.
- Cebollero-Salinas A, Cano-Escoriaza J, Orejudo S. Are emotional e-competencies a protective factor against habitual digital behaviors (media multitasking, cybergossip, phubbing) in Spanish students of secondary education? Comput Educ. 2022 May 1;181.
- Alonso C, Romero E. Uso problemático de internet en adolescentes: factores personales de riesgo y consecuencias emocionales y conductuales [Problematic Internet use in adolescents: personal risk factors and emotional and behavioral consequences]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud. 2021;12(2):76.
- Arrivillaga C, Rey L, Extremera N. Perfil emocional de adolescentes en riesgo de un uso problemático de internet [Emotional profile of adolescents at risk of problematic Internet use]. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes. 2021 Jan;8(no 1):47–53.
- Lopez-Fernandez O, Nikolopoulou K. Measuring mobile phone dependence in Spanish and Greek high school students using a short scale: Validating both adaptations. In: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 2017.
| Prevalence | Descriptive Statistics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ítems | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Almost always | Always | Mean | SD | Skewness (*) | Kurtosis (**) |
| Communication | |||||||||
| 1 | 7.30 | 40.10 | 35.80 | 13.80 | 2.90 | 2.65 | 0.91 | 0.42 | -0.03 |
| 3 | 48.93 | 33.16 | 11.62 | 4.52 | 1.78 | 1.77 | 0.95 | 1.3 | 1.38 |
| 4 | 24.43 | 47.45 | 22.06 | 4.81 | 0.81 | 2.1 | 0.85 | 0.6 | 0.28 |
| Obsession | |||||||||
| 6 | 17.91 | 19.91 | 19.62 | 21.91 | 20.65 | 3.07 | 1.4 | -0.07 | -1.28 |
| 7 | 31.90 | 33.68 | 20.36 | 10.07 | 4.00 | 2.21 | 1.12 | 0.72 | -0.25 |
| 8 | 29.61 | 43.75 | 20.65 | 4.44 | 1.48 | 2.04 | 0.9 | 0.77 | 0.5 |
| Model | χ2 | df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA (IC 90%) | SRMR | ΔCFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8-items 1 factor | 987.258 | 9 | .803 | .821 | 0.123 (0.116-0.131) | 0.094 | |
| 8-items 2 factor | 589.687 | 8 | .86 | .854 | 0.120 (0.112-0.127) | 0.072 | |
| 6-items 1 factor | 173.927 | 9 | .935 | .891 | 0.118 (0.103-0.134) | .060 | |
| 6-items 2 factor | 65.223 | 8 | .977 | .957 | 0.073 (0.058-0.091) | 0.039 | |
| Measurement Invariance | |||||||
| Gender | |||||||
| Male (n = 733) | 48.970 | 5 | .975 | .954 | .068 (.061-.075) | .033 | |
| Female (n = 578) | 47.872 | 5 | .974 | .969 | .069 (.062-.075) | .029 | |
| Configural invariance | 69.977 | 16 | .979 | .960 | .0072 (.055-.089) | .040 | |
| Metric invariance | 66.569 | 20 | .982 | .972 | .060 (.044-.076) | .043 | -.01 |
| Scalar invariance | 96.611 | 36 | .976 | .98 | .051 (.039-.063) | .042 | -.01 |
| Educational Level | |||||||
| Non-University (n = 755) | 48.264 | 5 | .977 | .955 | .066 (.043-.072) | .032 | |
| University (n = 556) | 47.823. | 5 | .976 | .951 | .063 (.045-.080) | .026 | |
| Configural invariance | 46.391 | 10 | .977 | .954 | .064 (.046-.083) | .027 | |
| Metric invariance | 49.585 | 14 | .978 | .968 | .053 (.038-.070) | .030 | -.01 |
| Scalar invariance | 51.787 | 18 | .966 | .962 | .059 (.045-.073) | .032 | -.01 |
| Factor Loadings | SE | CI 95% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Lower | Upper | ||
| Factor 1 | ||||
| 1 | 0.805 | 0.024 | 0.758 | 0.852 |
| 3 | 0.438 | 0.029 | 0.381 | 0.495 |
| 4 | 0.652 | 0.024 | 0.606 | 0.698 |
| Factor 2 | ||||
| 6 | 0.600 | 0.025 | 0.551 | 0.649 |
| 7 | 0.796 | 0.023 | 0.651 | 0.740 |
| 8 | 0.695 | 0.023 | 0.649 | 0.741 |
| Variable | PS Communication | PS Obsession | PS-6 Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| PS Obsession | 0.452** | — | |
| PS-6 Total | 0.802** | 0.895** | — |
| Rosenberg TOTAL | -0.145** | -0.130** | -0.159** |
| CIUS TOTAL | 0.417** | 0.363** | 0.450** |
| SDQ EMO | 0.159** | 0.167** | 0.189** |
| SDQ_COND | 0.160** | 0.039 | 0.109** |
| SDQ PEER | 0.009 | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| SDQ HIPER | -0.009 | -0.045 | -0.034 |
| SDQ PROS | 0.081* | -0.044 | 0.010 |
| SDQ TOTAL | 0.162 | 0.104** | 0.152** |
| PWI TOTAL | -0.080* | -0.115** | -0.115** |
| IERQ TOTAL | 0.099** | 0.105** | 0.120** |
| PS-10 Total | 0.817** | 0.795** | 0.940** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).