Fuzzy constructs in technology usage scales

Davidson, Brittany I.; Shaw, Heather; Ellis, David

doi:10.31234/osf.io/6durk

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, a recent study (Sewall et al, 2020) found that the degree of inaccuracy was directly related to the respondent's level of well-being. In a similar manner, evidence suggests that there is substantial conceptual overlap between various mental health constructs (e.g., anxiety, stress, depression) and problematic media use scales, but little (if any) of the variance explained includes usage (Davidson et al, 2020b). Taken together, this suggests that self-reported estimates of media use are likely systematically biased by the very factors that are fundamental to the associations under investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In contrast to these two assessments, only a low level of heterogeneity was observed for correlations involving self-reported problematic media use. This suggests, firstly that the relationship is relatively stable across comparisons and, secondly, given the differences in observed correlations and heterogeneity between general usage self-reports and problematic usage self-reports, that measures of problematic media use capture constructs distinct from those reflected in general media use self-reports (Davidson et al, 2020b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If these measures are not valid representations of the behaviour they are intended to assess, there is uncertainty about the nature of what is being measured (Davidson et al, 2020b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to considering associations between measures explicitly concerning media usage, acknowledging that, despite concerns over validation procedures (Harris et al, 2020;Laconi et al, 2014) and questionable relations between the constructs assessed and use (Davidson et al, 2020b), scales assessing problematic media use (i.e., technology-related addictions or other conceptions of problematic use) are frequently adopted to assess media use (Ellis, 2019;Shaw et al, 2020), we investigated the association between such measures and logged measures of media use. For this separate analysis we also expected the association between self-reported measures of problematic media use and measures produced from digital trace data to be positive but small to medium in magnitude.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to using self-report measures of media use quantity or duration, researchers frequently use self-report measures of problematic media use (e.g., technology-related addictions or other conceptions of problematic media use) as proxies for general use (Davidson et al, 2020b;Ellis et al, 2019;Ellis, 2019). These problematic media use scales frequently include items that concern cognitive or affective responses to, or motivations for media use alongside items assessing media use quantity or duration (Abendroth et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Discrepancies Between Logged and Self- Reported Digital Media Use

Parry¹,

Davidson²,

Sewall³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of digital media on personal and social well-being is a question of immense public and academic interest. Scholars in this domain often use retrospective self-report measures of the quantity or duration of media use as a proxy for more objective measures, but the validity of these self-report measures remains unclear. Recent advancements in log-based data collection techniques have produced a growing collection of studies indexing both self-reported media use and device-logged measurements. Herein, we report a meta-analysis of this body of research. Based on 104 effect sizes, we found that self-reported media use was only moderately correlated with device-logged measurements, and that these self-report measures were rarely an accurate reflection of logged media use. These results demonstrate that self-reported measures of the quantity or duration of media use are not a valid index of the amount of time people actually spend using media. These findings have serious implications for the study of media use and well- being, suggesting that cautiousness is warranted in drawing conclusions regarding media effects from studies relying solely on self-reported measures of media use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If these measures are not valid representations of the behaviour they are intended to assess, there is uncertainty about the nature of what is being measured (Davidson et al, 2020b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Discrepancies Between Logged and Self- Reported Digital Media Use

Parry¹,

Davidson²,

Sewall³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the COVID-19 pandemic has largely increased the utilization of telehealth, mobile mental health technologies -such as smartphone apps, virtual reality, chatbots, and social media -have also gained attention. These digital health technologies offer the potential of accessible and scalable interventions that can augment traditional care. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive update on the overall field of digital psychiatry, covering three areas. First, we outline the relevance of recent technological advances to mental health research and care, by detailing how smartphones, social media, artificial intelligence and virtual reality present new opportunities for "digital phenotyping" and remote intervention. Second, we review the current evidence for the use of these new technological approaches across different mental health contexts, covering their emerging efficacy in self-management of psychological well-being and early intervention, along with more nascent research supporting their use in clinical management of long-term psychiatric conditions -including major depression; anxiety, bipolar and psychotic disorders; and eating and substance use disorders -as well as in child and adolescent mental health care. Third, we discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities towards real-world implementation, using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to explain how the innovations themselves, the recipients of these innovations, and the context surrounding innovations all must be considered to facilitate their adoption and use in mental health care systems. We conclude that the new technological capabilities of smartphones, artificial intelligence, social media and virtual reality are already changing mental health care in unforeseen and exciting ways, each accompanied by an early but promising evidence base. We point out that further efforts towards strengthening implementation are needed, and detail the key issues at the patient, provider and policy levels which must now be addressed for digital health technologies to truly improve mental health research and treatment in the future.

show abstract

The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates the perspective taking process in online and face-to-face mediations. In particular, it addresses the question whether a perspective taking technique—being asked circular questions—helps the establishment of mutual understanding and interpersonal trust between negotiators in online and face-to-face mediation settings. This question was studied in an experimental setting in which disputants had to solve a conflict face-to-face or online by the help of a professional mediator. During the interventions, the mediator either posed mainly circular (perspective-taking) or linear questions. It was expected that mediations in which circular questions were used would lead to a higher level of mutual understanding and interpersonal trust between the disputants, and—as a result—to a more satisfying, integrative agreement. Furthermore, this study examined whether the communication mode of the intervention (online, face-to-face) affected the re-establishment of disputants’ interpersonal trust and understanding. The results of the study show that disputants’ feelings of trust in and understanding of their interaction partner improved more in the face-to-face mediations than in the online mediations. These improved feelings of understanding and trust also predicted how satisfying and integrative disputants perceived the agreement to be. Moreover, disputants perceived their mediator to be more trustworthy and more professional in the face-to-face than in the online interventions. No effect was found for mediators’ questioning style on disputants’ improved interpersonal trust and mutual understanding. We discuss the effects of the questioning style of a mediator and conclude with reflections on reasons why these effects did not lead to differences in mutual understanding and interpersonal trust between the disputants.

show abstract

Fuzzy constructs in technology usage scales

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Discrepancies Between Logged and Self- Reported Digital Media Use

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Discrepancies Between Logged and Self- Reported Digital Media Use

The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality

The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About