4.4 Article

Psychometric validation of the Persian Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale using classic test theory and Rasch models

期刊

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 620-629

出版社

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.071

关键词

adolescence; confirmatory factor analysis; differential item functioning; measurement invariance; social media addiction; Rasch analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: The Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS), a six-item self-report scale that is a brief and effective psychometric instrument for assessing at-risk social media addiction on the Internet. However, its psychometric properties in Persian have never been examined and no studies have applied Rasch analysis for the psychometric testing. This study aimed to verify the construct validity of the Persian BSMAS using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch models among 2,676 Iranian adolescents. Methods: In addition to construct validity, measurement invariance in CFA and differential item functioning (DIF) in Rasch analysis across gender were tested for in the Persian BSMAS. Results: Both CFA [comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.993; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.989; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.057; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.039] and Rasch (infit MnSq = 0.88-1.28; outfit MnSq = 0.86-1.22) confirmed the unidimensionality of the BSMAS. Moreover, measurement invariance was supported in multigroup CFA including metric invariance (Delta CFI = -0.001; Delta SRMR = 0.003; Delta RMSEA = -0.005) and scalar invariance (Delta CFI = -0.002; Delta SRMR = 0.005; Delta RMSEA = 0.001) across gender. No item displayed DIF (DIF contrast = -0.48 to 0.24) in Rasch across gender. Conclusions: Given the Persian BSMAS was unidimensional, it is concluded that the instrument can be used to assess how an adolescent is addicted to social media on the Internet. Moreover, users of the instrument may comfortably compare the sum scores of the BSMAS across gender.

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

4.4
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