Cited by 56Impact of Technology on AdolescentsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchSexuality, Behavior, and Technology

Latent-level relations between DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters and problematic smartphone use

Open access
Contractor, Ateka A., Frankfurt, Sheila B., Weiss, Nicole H., Elhai, Jon D.·2017·Computers in Human Behavior

Abstract

Common mental health consequences following the experience of potentially traumatic events include Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and addictive behaviors. Problematic smartphone use is a newer manifestation of addictive behaviors. People with anxiety severity (such as PTSD) may be at risk for problematic smartphone use as a means of coping with their symptoms. Unique to our knowledge, we assessed relations between PTSD symptom clusters and problematic smartphone use. Participants (N = 347), recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), completed measures of PTSD and smartphone addiction. Results of the Wald tests of parameter constraints indicated that problematic smartphone use was more related to PTSD’s negative alterations in cognitions and mood (NACM) than to PTSD’s avoidance factor, Wald χ2(1, N = 347) = 12.51, p = 0.0004; and more to PTSD’s arousal compared to PTSD’s avoidance factor, Wald χ2(1, N = 347) = 14.89, p = 0.0001. Results indicate that problematic smartphone use is most associated with negative affect and arousal among trauma-exposed individuals. Implications include the need to clinically assess problematic smartphone use among trauma-exposed individuals presenting with higher NACM and arousal severity; and targeting NACM and arousal symptoms to mitigate the effects of problematic smartphone use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.051

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The most commonly referenced cut-off point for determining when smartphone use becomes problematic was based on the work of Kwon, Lee, et al. (2013) and their Smartphone Addiction Scale.

    “The most commonly referenced cut-off point for determining when smartphone use becomes problematic was based on the work of Kwon, Lee, et al. (2013) and their Smartphone Addiction Scale (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016;Contractor et al., 2017;Enez;Enez Darcin et al., 2016;Hartanto & Yang, 2016).”

    From Antecedents and consequences of problematic smartphone use: A systematic literature review of an emerging research area (2021) · cites this paper as Contractor et al., 2017

    The Methods section (2.4.3; page unavailable) attributes the recommended cut-off scores to Kwon, Kim, et al. (2013) and the short version of the scale, not to Kwon, Lee, et al. (2013). The paper also does not say that these are the most commonly referenced cut-offs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Problematic use should not necessarily be considered an addiction prima facie as it may also derive from other sources such as obsessive compulsive checking, loneliness, anxiety, or unresolved real-life problems.

    “It is argued that problematic use should not necessarily be considered an addiction prima facie as it may also derive from other sources such as obsessive compulsive checking (Steelman et al., 2012), loneliness (Kim, 2017(Kim, , 2018)), anxiety (Contractor et al., 2017), or unresolved real-life problems (Wang, Wang, Gaskin, & Wang, 2015).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Contractor, A. A., Frankfurt, S. B., Weiss, N. H., & Elhai, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Toledo (US)
Corresponding author
Contractor, Ateka A.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
72
Pages
170-177
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2589539894
Cited by
56
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
18.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Office of Academic Affiliations
  • Central Texas Veterans Health Care System
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, smartphone addiction, PTSD symptom clusters, DSM-5 PTSD criteria, hyperarousal, avoidance, trauma exposure, addictive behavior, coping with anxiety

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