Cited by 1,279Impact of Technology on AdolescentsSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyGender and Technology in Education

Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive–behavioral measurement instrument

Caplan, Scott E·2002·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00004-3

Cites

32 of 32 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caplan, S. E.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Corresponding author
Caplan, Scott E
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-09
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
553-575
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970339110
Cited by
1,279
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 126 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 66
FWCI
15.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
problematic internet use, psychosocial well-being, scale development, depression, loneliness, shyness, self-esteem, compulsive internet use, undergraduate students

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