4.7 Article

Cyberdating Q_A: An instrument to assess the quality of adolescent dating relationships in social networks

Journal

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages 78-86

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.006

Keywords

Cyberdating; Adolescent dating relationships; Quality of dating relationships; Social networks; Mixed methods

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education [PSI 2010 - 17246, PSI2013-45118-R]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport of Spain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The studies about the impact of new technologies and social networks on adolescent dating relationships are still considered emerging, especially in Spain. This study analysed the quality of cyberdating among adolescents by means of a mixed study. In a first study two focus groups were developed with the aim of exploring the positive and negative aspects of Internet and social networks for dating relationships. The results of this study were the base for developing a scale of the quality of cyberdating: The cyberdating Q_A. The instrument was administered to 626 adolescents (average age 15.13; SD = 1.34; 51.4% males) and a cross-validation procedure was performed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Results confirmed a structure of six factors, namely online intimacy, emotional communication strategies, cyberdating practices, online control, online jealousy, and online intrusive behavior. Descriptive analysis showed that these scales were very frequent among adolescents, with boys scoring higher in intrusive behavior and cyberdating practices than girls. These results underlined the relevance of online activity in adolescent quality of dating relationships, so future research would benefit from considering an analysis of both overall and specific relationship quality measures in online settings by means of this new measure of cyberdating. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available