3.9 Article

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Smartphone Addiction Scale- Short Version among university students

Journal

Publisher

CUMHURIYET UNIV TIP FAK PSIKIYATRI ANABILIM DALI
DOI: 10.5455/apd.176101

Keywords

smartphone; addiction; validity; reliability

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Smartphone Addiction Scale-Short Version (SAS-SV) among university students. Methods: Three hundred and sixty-seven university students using smartphone from Uskudar University are enrolled the study. Sociodemographic information including characteristics of smartphone usage, internet addiction scale and SAS-SV were conducted. SAS-SV consists of ten items and single factor structure. For the examination of structure validity, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's tests were utilized. In order to check the reliability of each item, Cronbach's alpha correlation coefficient was confirmed for each item and total. The corrected item/total correlation coefficients and test-retest reliability were also calculated. The concurrent validity was confirmed using Internet Addiction Scale. Results: Chronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.867 and had a high reliability. Reliability coefficient of test/retest was 0.926. The SAS-SV was statistically and positively correlated with the internet addiction scale confirming concurrent validity. Participants who evaluated themselves as addicted to smartphones had statistically significantly higher SAS-SV scores than the participants who evaluated themselves as not-addicted. Also the SAS-SV scores were statistically and positively correlated with the frequency of smartphone-checking behavior and the time consumed during smartphone use. Conclusion: SAS-SV is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate smartphone usage among university students.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available