The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Do smartphone usage scales predict behavior?
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Understanding how people use technology remains important, particularly when measuring the impact this might have on individuals and society. However, despite a growing body of resources that can quantify smartphone use, research within psychology and social science overwhelmingly relies on self-reported assessments. These have yet to convincingly demonstrate an ability to predict objective behavior. Here, and for the first time, we compare a variety of smartphone use and ‘addiction’ scales with objective behaviors derived from Apple's Screen Time application. While correlations between psychometric scales and objective behavior are generally poor, single estimates and measures that attempt to frame technology use as habitual rather than ‘addictive’ correlate more favorably with subsequent behavior. We conclude that existing self-report instruments are unlikely to be sensitive enough to accurately predict basic technology use related behaviors. As a result, conclusions regarding the psychological impact of technology are unreliable when relying solely on these measures to quantify typical usage.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“even though self-reported smartphone assessments have been shown to perform poorly when attempting to predict objective smartphone behaviours.29”
From Smartphone use as a possible risk factor for myopia (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Therefore the use of smartphone data as a surrogate indicator of phone use provides a better indicator of smartphone behaviour than self-reported usage data.29”
From Smartphone use as a possible risk factor for myopia (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Second, although retrospective self-reports of adolescents' social media use are most commonly employed, they may be biased and suffer from underestimation (48).”
From Does Social Media Use Increase Depressive Symptoms? A Reverse Causation Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064
Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 · Cited by 6,404
Top 10 algorithms in data mining
Wu, X., Kumar, V., Ross Quinlan, J., Ghosh, J., Yang, Q., Motoda, H., McLachlan, G. J., Ng, A., Liu, B., Yu, P. S., et al. (2008) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-007-0114-2 · Cited by 5,667
The Smartphone addiction scale: development and validation of a short version for adolescents
Kwon, M., Kim, D.-J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083558 · Cited by 2,177
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702617723376 · Cited by 1,705
Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030 · Cited by 1,689 · cited 1×
“…these assessments tends to use high-scores to correlate smartphone usage with a variety of negative outcomes (e.g., depression and anxiety) (e.g., Elhai, Dvorak, Levine, & Hall, 2017; Richardson, Hussain, & Griffiths, 2018) and provide evidence for the classification of a behavioral addiction…”
BackgroundBaumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x · Cited by 1,629
Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use
Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39 · Cited by 1,514
Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0054-y · Cited by 1,205
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Csibi, 2016, A Rövid Okostelefon Addikció Kérdoív (ROTAK) kidolgozása és pszichometriai validálása iskoláskorú gyermekekkel. TT - [Development and psychometric validation of the Brief Smartphone Addiction Scale (BSAS) with schoolchidren], Psychiatr. Hung.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parry, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Sewall, C. J. R., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski, H., & Quintana, D. S. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5 · Cited by 793
Self-citationTeenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies
Orben, A. (2020) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4 · Cited by 706
Systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiology of internet addiction
Pan, Y.-C., Chiu, Y.-C., & Lin, Y.-H. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.08.013 · Cited by 477
Smartphone addiction is increasing across the world: A meta-analysis of 24 countries
Olson, J. A., Sandra, D. A., Colucci, É. S., Bikaii, A. A., Chmoulevitch, D., Nahas, J., Raz, A., & Veissière, S. P. L. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107138 · Cited by 474
The impact of digital technology use on adolescent well-being
Dienlin, T., & Johannes, N. (2020) · Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.31887/dcns.2020.22.2/tdienlin · Cited by 393
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Shaw, H., & Geyer, K.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- University of Bath (GB)
- University of Lincoln (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ellis, David A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 130
- Pages
- 86-92
- ISSN
- 1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2942805235
- Semantic Scholar
- 0d1a5d44d54de6b5dce0722f1880e3e00a6ce4cd
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 18
- FWCI
- 95.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- smartphone use, self-report measures, technology addiction, habit, scale validity
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
