4.6 Article

Development and Validation of a Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS)

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056936

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A120157]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [HI12C0113010013] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a self-diagnostic scale that could distinguish smartphone addicts based on the Korean self-diagnostic program for Internet addiction (K-scale) and the smartphone's own features. In addition, the reliability and validity of the smartphone addiction scale (SAS) was demonstrated. Methods: A total of 197 participants were selected from Nov. 2011 to Jan. 2012 to accomplish a set of questionnaires, including SAS, K-scale, modified Kimberly Young Internet addiction test (Y-scale), visual analogue scale (VAS), and substance dependence and abuse diagnosis of DSM-IV. There were 64 males and 133 females, with ages ranging from 18 to 53 years (M = 26.06; SD = 5.96). Factor analysis, internal-consistency test, t-test, ANOVA, and correlation analysis were conducted to verify the reliability and validity of SAS. Results: Based on the factor analysis results, the subscale disturbance of reality testing was removed, and six factors were left. The internal consistency and concurrent validity of SAS were verified (Cronbach's alpha = 0.967). SAS and its subscales were significantly correlated with K-scale and Y-scale. The VAS of each factor also showed a significant correlation with each subscale. In addition, differences were found in the job (p < 0.05), education (p < 0.05), and self-reported smartphone addiction scores (p < 0.001) in SAS. Conclusions: This study developed the first scale of the smartphone addiction aspect of the diagnostic manual. This scale was proven to be relatively reliable and valid.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据