Development of an Offline-Friend Addiction Questionnaire (O-FAQ): Are most people really social addicts?

Satchell, Liam; Fido, Dean; Harper, Craig A.; Shaw, Heather; Davidson, Brittany I.; Ellis, David; Hart, Claire M.; Jalil, Rahul; Bartoli, Alice Jones; Kaye, Linda; Lancaster, Gary L. J.; Pavetich, Melissa

doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01462-9

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their satirical research paper Satchell et al [44] validate a scale measuring 'Offline Friend Addiction'. They do so by defining the construct of 'Addiction' by the outcomes of the measurement, following the methods of other commonly used social media addiction scales.…”

Section: Specifying Constructs In Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unless a researcher clearly states how a construct is to be understood in the context of their study, it becomes impossible to assess whether their measurement was appropriate. As defining a construct by its measurement is not appropriate either [3,44], researchers need to state a clear definition of how the researched construct is to be understood. Simply matching a construct to a measurement without a proper definition does not provide enough information to readers and reviewers.…”

Section: Defining Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transparency in Measurement Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review of CHI PLAY

Aeschbach¹,

Perrig²,

Weder³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring theoretical concepts, so-called constructs, is a central challenge of Player Experience research. Building on recent work in HCI and psychology, we conducted a systematic literature review to study the transparency of measurement reporting. We accessed the ACM Digital Library to analyze all 48 full papers published at CHI PLAY 2020, of those, 24 papers used self-report measurements and were included in the full review. We assessed specifically, whether researchers reported What, How and Why they measured. We found that researchers matched their measures to the construct under study and that administrative details, such as number of points on a Likert-type scale, were frequently reported. However, definitions of the constructs to be measured and justifications for selecting a particular scale were sparse. Lack of transparency in these areas threaten the validity of singular studies, but further compromise the building of theories and accumulation of research knowledge in meta-analytic work. This work is limited to only assessing the current transparency of measurement reporting at CHI PLAY 2020, however we argue this constitutes a fair foundation to asses potential pitfalls. To address these pitfalls, we propose a prescriptive model of a measurement selection process, which aids researchers to systematically define their constructs, specify operationalizations, and justify why these measures were chosen. Future research employing this model should contribute to more transparency in measurement reporting. The research was funded through internal resources. All materials are available on https://osf.io/4xz2v/.

show abstract

Section: Specifying Constructs In Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defining Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency in Measurement Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review of CHI PLAY

Aeschbach¹,

Perrig²,

Weder³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This inconsistency between self-report measures and objective measures can be applied to other behavioural addictions. There is growing evidence that the scales used to measure behavioural addictions based on self-report lack validity and do not reflect psychopathological disorders, despite the fact that they are developed using the current standards of validity and reliability [21,47]. Another factor that may explain this inconsistency is that social desirability could bias the participants' responses [48,49].…”

Section: Self-perception and Objective Measures Of Addictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another factor that may explain this inconsistency is that social desirability could bias the participants' responses [48,49]. Our critical appraisal suggests that we should re-examine studies that purport to measure addiction to things such as offline friends [47], the Star Wars universe [50], Harry Potter books [51] or tango dancing [52].…”

Section: Self-perception and Objective Measures Of Addictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absence of Objective Differences between Self-Identified Addicted and Healthy Smartphone Users?

Geyer

Carbonell

Beranuy

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smartphones are used by billions of people worldwide. However, some psychologists have argued that use of this technology is addictive, even though little research utilises objective smartphone usage records to verify this claim. We conducted an exploratory study to identify whether behavioural differences exist between those who self-identify as addicted smartphone users and those who do not. We gathered retrospective smartphone usage data from 131 Android users and asked them about their past use to compare their perception of their usage against their actual usage. We could not identify any reliable differences between the smartphone activity of those self-identified as addicted smartphone users and other users. Furthermore, smartphone scales are generally good at identifying who believes themselves to be addicted, although they do not reflect objective smartphone use. This study questions the use of self-report measures to diagnosis behavioural addictions without relevant psychopathological constructs and emphasises the need for more rigorous study to conceptualise smartphone addiction.

show abstract

“…Even when measures are "validated" following the steps recommended for construct validation throughout much of psychology, it is unclear whether they are actually valid. In one striking demonstration of this, a measure of "o inefriend addiction" was "validated" using conventional construct validation techniques, to show that these techniques are inadequate (Satchell et al, 2020). While the authors limit their conclusions to problematic norms in the sub elds of addiction and social media research, we believe these norms are fairly widespread.…”

Section: Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Credibility Beyond Replicability: Improving the Four Validities in Psychological Science

Vazire¹,

Schiavone²,

Jg³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological science has seen an explosion of metascientific work on improving research practices, especially in the area of replicability (reducing false positives). This movement, sometimes called the credibility revolution, has spread to address other problems afflicting psychological science. Here we focus on the “four validities” (Shadish et al., 2002) and highlight some of the most important developments aimed at improving these four validities in psychology research. We propose that the credibility revolution in psychology, while having its roots in replicability, has spurred major advances in validity more broadly, and much of this work has been led by early career researchers.

show abstract

Development of an Offline-Friend Addiction Questionnaire (O-FAQ): Are most people really social addicts?

Cited by 28 publications

References 45 publications

Transparency in Measurement Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review of CHI PLAY

Transparency in Measurement Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review of CHI PLAY

Absence of Objective Differences between Self-Identified Addicted and Healthy Smartphone Users?

Credibility Beyond Replicability: Improving the Four Validities in Psychological Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About