Cited by 149Personal Information Management and User BehaviorImpact of Technology on AdolescentsCyberloafing and Workplace Behavior

Make it our time: In class multitaskers have lower academic performance

Bellur, Saraswathi, Nowak, Kristine L., Hull, Kyle S.·2015·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.027

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bellur, S., Nowak, K. L., & Hull, K. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Aquinas College - Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Bellur, Saraswathi
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
53
Pages
63-70
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2293948263
Cited by
149
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
22.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
Keywords
media multitasking, academic performance, university students, social media use, GPA, study habits, gender differences in technology use, homework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review