| Title |
The Psychometric Properties of the Smartphone Application-Based Addiction Scale (SABAS)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11469-017-9787-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sándor Csibi, Mark D. Griffiths, Brian Cook, Zsolt Demetrovics, Attila Szabo |
| Abstract |
The goal of the study was to validate the English version of the Smartphone Application-Based Addiction Scale (SABAS; Csibi et al. 2016), which is a short and easy-to-use tool for screening the risk of smartphone application-based addiction. Another aim was to identify the most frequently used smartphone applications and their perceived importance by the participants. Data were collected online from 240 English-speaking volunteers, aged 18 to 69 years. The instruments used were the SABAS, the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q), the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS), the Deprivation Sensation Scale (DSS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Participants also ranked the importance of their most frequently used smartphone applications. The six items of the SABAS yielded one component, which accounted for 52.38% of the total variance. The internal reliability of the scale was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). NMP-Q was a significant predictor of SABAS, explaining 17.6% of the total variance. The regression analysis, with SABAS score as the dependent variable and NMP-Q, DSS, PHQ-9, and BSSS scores as predictors, indicated that approximately 47% of the variance in SABAS was accounted for by the predictors (R2 = 0.47). The English version of the SABAS appears to be a valid and reliable ultra-brief tool for a quick and easy assessment of smartphone application-based addiction symptoms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 258 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 12% |
| Researcher | 19 | 7% |
| Professor | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 45 | 17% |
| Unknown | 77 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 60 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 16% |
| Unknown | 95 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,854,356
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
#182
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,157
of 317,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.