Problematic Social Network Use Structure and Asses

International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2023) 21:2122–2137
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-021-00711-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Problematic Social Network Use: Structure and Assessment
Covadonga González‑Nuevo1 · Marcelino Cuesta1 · Álvaro Postigo1 ·

Álvaro Menéndez‑Aller1 · José Muñiz2
Accepted: 11 November 2021 / Published online: 2 December 2021

© The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Using social networks (SNs) inappropriately can lead to psychological problems. The
objective of this study was to develop a new measuring instrument of problematic use of
SNs. The sample comprised 1003 participants over 18 years old (M = 42.33; SD = 14.32).
Exploratory factor analysis was performed with a randomly selected 30% of the sample,
and confirmatory factor analysis with the remaining 70%. The reliability of the instrument
was estimated, and evidence of validity in relation to the variables—anxiety, depression
and satisfaction with life—was obtained. The new scale demonstrated a two-dimensional
structure (GFI =0.99; RMSEA= 0.06), with one factor of negative social comparison (α =
0.94) and another of addictive consequences (α = 0.91). Clear evidence of validity related
to other variables was found. The new scale demonstrated good psychometric properties.
The advantage of this questionnaire is that it assesses not only excessive use but also social
comparison through SNs.
Keywords Social networks · Problematic social media use · Social comparison · Addictive
social media use
Time spent in social networks (SNs) has been linked to various psychological problems
such as depression, anxiety and psychological well-being (Frost & Rickwood, 2017; Hus-
sain & Griffiths, 2021). However, in order to clarify this relationship, it is necessary to
determine which behaviours in SNs are truly problematic, as certain activities in SNs may
not be problematic but positive, such as using SNs as a form of social support (Gilmour
et al., 2020).
Various terms have been used to refer to maladaptive SNs use, such as problematic
social media use (Bányai et al., 2017), social media disorder (Van Den Eijnden et al.,
2016) and Facebook addiction (Andreassen et al., 2012). Despite this broad range
of terminology, there are two main approaches for evaluating the problematic use of
SNs, each one related to the two existing models for problematic internet use (Matute,
2016). One approach conceives problematic SNs use as a problem of addiction, and
* Covadonga González‑Nuevo
[email protected]
1
University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
2
University of Nebrija, Madrid, Spain
1 Vol:.(1234567890)
3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2023) 21:2122–2137 2123
thus focuses on symptoms usually present in behavioural addiction (Allahverdi, 2021;

Andreassen et al., 2012; Blanca & Bendayan, 2018; Van Den Eijnden et al., 2016). The
other approach applies Caplan’s (2010) model of problematic internet use to SNs.
Studies based on Caplan’s (2010) model not only address typical symptoms of behav-
ioural addiction, such as mood-related and negative consequences, but also include
other traits which would denote problematic use (Marino et al., 2016). One such trait is
particularly important in problematic SNs use and could be assessed alongside addictive
traits and is named negative social comparison (Verduyn et al., 2020). Negative social
comparison on SNs, defined as comparisons that make a person feel inferior to others on
SNs, has been related to negative mental health consequences (Appel et al., 2015). To
the best of our knowledge, no instruments have been developed so far that evaluate this
specific behaviour on SNs.
Social comparison was defined by Festinger (1954) as the tendency to use other
people as sources of information to examine one’s own abilities and ways of behav-
ing, thinking, or feeling. These comparisons, which are innate in humans, are intensified
on SNs due to the almost limitless content available (Perloff, 2014). This comparison
can have positive or negative consequences, depending on which one compares oneself
with. There are two possibilities: either the person compares themselves with someone
they consider inferior (downward comparison) and their self-esteem improves or they
compare themselves with someone considered superior (upward comparison), which is
a common situation on SNs and is known to have negative effects on a person’s mental
health (De Lenne et al., 2018; De Vries et al., 2018; Luong et al., 2019; Verduyn et al.,
2020).
The assessment of social comparison on SNs has mostly depended on unvalidated ques-
tionnaires. Two types of questionnaires have been used without the corresponding psycho-
metric analysis. On the one hand, there are unvalidated questionnaires that have been con-
structed for a specific study, such as the questionnaire by Lee (2014), in which the author
makes no mention of factorial structure or reliability. However, it has continued to be used
in subsequent studies (De Vries & Kühne, 2015; Schmuck et al., 2019). Another example
of an “ad hoc” questionnaire about SNs comparison is in Cramer et al. (2016), in which
only reliability was addressed. On the other hand, researchers have modified question-
naires aimed at evaluating social comparison in other contexts to assess social comparison
on SNs. For example, a common practice to adapt them to the SNs context is to change
the content of the items, mainly, by adding the word “Facebook”. For instance, Liu et al.
(2017) adapted an instrument aimed at assessing comparison in day-to-day life, the Iowa
Netherlands Comparison Measure (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), to the context of SNs.
The most commonly studied psychological problems related to problematic SNs use
are anxiety, depression and psychological well-being, with gambling and cyberbullying
as other less frequently related issues (Feijóo et al., 2021). Problematic use, understood
as a purely addictive problem, has been associated with higher levels of depression and
anxiety (Barbar et al., 2021; Keles et al., 2020; Malaeb et al., 2021; Seabrook et al., 2016
; Youssef et al., 2021), stress (Hussain & Griffiths, 2018) and poorer psychological well-
being (Marino et al., 2018b). Problematic SN use, when considered a context for negative
social comparison, has also been associated with greater levels of depression (Yoon et al.,
2019) and anxiety-depressive symptoms (Schmuck et al., 2019), as well as with lower lev-
els of psychological well-being (Arias-de la Torre et al., 2020; Huang, 2017). Recent meta-
analyses have also studied problematic SNs use by combining both types of uses, addictive
and comparative, which they have found to be both positively related to depression (Vahedi
& Zannella, 2021; Yoon et al., 2019).
13
2124 International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2023) 21:2122–2137
In summary, there seems to be a relationship between the development of psycho-

logical disorders and the problematic use of SNs. The strength of this relationship, how-
ever, largely depends on how the use of SNs is defined, and therefore measured. To date,
research has addressed this relationship by understanding the problematic use of SNs as a
purely addictive problem. Our study aims to bring a broader approach by developing a tool
that also assesses social comparison on SNs, which is not only a fundamental characteristic
of SNs but it is also completely different to the social comparison that takes place in other
contexts. This questionnaire, meant to be used with any SNs, is the first one in the Spanish
context. Therefore, our main objective in this study is the development and validation of a
measuring instrument that will allow standardized, rigorous measurement of problematic
SNs use. In order to do that, we will perform the appropriate psychometric analyses to pro-
vide evidence of item quality and relationship with other variables, along with reliability
and dimensionality.
Method
Participants
The sample was initially composed of 1,059 participants from the Spanish general popula-
tion over 18 years old. The final sample was reduced to 1,003 following the removal of
5.29% of the sample for having more than two incorrect answers in the attentional control
scale (described in more detail in the “Instruments” section). The participants were aged
between 18 and 83 years old (M = 42.33; SD = 14.32), with 75.5% of them being women
and almost two-thirds (64.81%) of the participants having university-level qualifications.
Table 1 shows the distribution of gender and level of education both in the sample and the
Spanish general population.
Instruments
Problematic Use of SNs (PUS) Questionnaire
In the development of the new instrument, problematic use of SNs (PUS), we followed the
criteria established by the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) for
test evaluation (Evers et al., 2013) and the standards for Educational and Psychological
Table 1. Distribution of gender and educational attainment in the sample and in the Spanish general popu-
lation
% Primary % Under university % University-level % Total
education qualifications qualifications
% Spanish population Men 40.2 23.1 36.7 49

Women 34.1 23.3 42.7 50.9
Total 36.8 21.6 41.3
% Sample Men 3.3 43.9 52.8 24.5
Women 2.4 28.9 68.7 75.5
Total 2.59 32.53 64.81
13
Evaluation (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014), as well as the recommendations from the current
literature on psychometry (Downing & Haladyna, 2006; Lane et al., 2015; Muñiz, 2018;
Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero, 2019).
A review of the literature was undertaken to construct a set of items representative of
the behaviours that comprise problematic use of SNs (54 items). All of the items were
worded directly (Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2018; Vigil-Colet et al., 2020). Problematic SN
use was defined in the same way as in Marino et al. (2018a), as the use of SNs that pro-
duces negative consequences in people’s psychological well-being. From this definition,
the items were developed in accordance to the two theoretical areas of problematic SN use:
the addiction-related consequences of SNs use and negative social comparison. Addictive
use would reflect the interference of SNs use in everyday life, while negative social com-
parison would reflect the comparisons made on SNs which puts the individual in a situa-
tion of inferiority. While these two facets were created to cover the theoretical aspects of
maladaptive use of SNs, the internal structure of the test, however, was expected to reflect
unidimensionality. This is because both addictive use and negative comparisons on SNs
would both be uses of SNs with negative consequences on people’s lives. There are also
meta-analyses that have examined the problematic use of SNs as a combination of the two
uses (Vahedi & Zannella, 2021; Yoon et al., 2019).
A detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis was carried out to determine the repre-
sentativeness of the content (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014) with the participation of 21
doctors of psychology. The expert assessment had two parts: (a) rating the clarity of the
item wording on a scale from 1 to 10 and (b) rating how strongly each item belonged to
each hypothesized dimension of problematic use of SNs. The expert judges were also able
to comment on each item. From the data thus obtained, we applied the following three
criteria to remove low-quality items: (a) inter-rater agreement below 70% with respect to
the measured dimension, (b) the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of Aiken’s V
below 0.7 (Charter, 2003) and (c) unfavourable comments. Thus, we removed 34 items,
with a final scale containing 20 items. The scores in the final scale for Aiken’s V were 0.88
[95% CI 0.82–0.93], indicating an excellent level of agreement about the clarity of the item
wording (Penfield and Giacobbi 2004). The final instrument consisted of 20 Likert-type
item with five response categories (1 completely disagree, 5 completely agree).
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985)
This instrument is a scale that measures life satisfaction and it has five items. Participants
are asked how much they agree with each statement, responding using a 5-point Likert-
type scale (from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Reliability estimated
using the α coefficient for the Spanish adaptation was 0.88 (Vázquez et al., 2013). The α
coefficient in the present study was 0.82.
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983)
We used the Spanish adaptation from Terol et al. (2007). This is a questionnaire containing
14 items, with two subscales of 7 items each, responses to which are given on a Likert-
type scale from 0/3. One subscale, HADS_A, assesses the level of anxiety, and the other,
HADS_D, assesses the level of depression. Higher scores in each subscale indicate greater
anxiety and depression, respectively. The internal consistency of the two scales in the
13
Spanish version was 0.86 (Quintana et al., 2003). The α coefficient in the present study was
0.84 for HADS_A and 0.77 for HADS_D.
Attentional Control Scale
We included an attentional control scale in order to detect participants who responded ran-
domly to the different questionnaires. It was composed of 10 items that asked participants
to choose a specific response (e.g., in this question, mark completely agree).
Procedure
We used snowball sampling via SNs to obtain the sample. Participants had to be 18 years
old or older to participate. Data collection was done through an online questionnaire,
anonymously and voluntarily, with informed consent being given before starting. Both the
questionnaire items and the attentional control items were presented to the participants in
random order. The participants received no reward for their participation.
Data Analysis
We used the SPSS 24 statistics package (IBM Corp, 2016) to calculate the descriptive sta-
tistics, differential item functioning (DIF), Pearson correlations and the canonical correla-
tion. We used FACTOR 10.10.02 (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2013) to perform the explor-
atory factor analysis (EFA) and to calculate reliability coefficients. Finally, we used the
Mplus8 program (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) to carry out the confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA).
To examine the internal structure of the test, we randomly divided the sample into two
subsamples. We carried out an EFA in the first subsample, made up of 30% of the total
sample (305 subjects), and a CFA in the second subsample (698 subjects). To check that
the data was suitable for EFA, we used KMO and Bartlett’s statistic. The analysis was done
with a polychoric correlation matrix given the ordinal nature of the variables and the high
number of items with kurtosis and skewness values greater than |1| (Ferrando Piera, 2021;
Muthen & Kaplan, 1992). The method of estimation was robust unweighted least squares
(RULS), following the guidelines in the current literature (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). We
determined the number of factors using the optimal implementation of parallel analysis
(PA) procedure (Calderón et al., 2019; Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011).
Subsequently, in order to confirm the dimensionality indicated by the EFA, we per-
formed a CFA with the remaining 70% of the sample. The method of estimation used was
unweighted least squares estimates with standard errors and a mean- and variance-adjusted
chi-square test (ULSMV). The indices of fit were comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), root mean square residual (RMSR) and root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA). A good fit was observed if CFI >0.95, TLI >0.95, RMSR < 0.08 and
RMSEA < 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Following both factor analyses, we carried out an item analysis in accordance to the
classical test theory model. To assess the discrimination indices of the items, the corrected
item-test correlations were calculated, with values higher than 0.2 considered acceptable
(Muñiz et al., 2005; Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero, 2019). We also examined whether the
items had an impact as a function of the variable sex. In the items that did show an impact,
we assessed DIF via the logistic regression procedure (Gómez-Benito et al., 2013).
13
We used Cronbach’s (1951) α coefficient and Mcdonald’s (1999) ω coefficient to exam-

ine reliability.
We examined evidence of validity in relation to other variables by calculating the Pear-
son correlation between the new instrument and the following variables: (a) the HADS
anxiety and depression scales, and (b) the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). To observe
the overall relationship between problematic SNs use and psychological distress, a canoni-
cal correlation was carried out between the two dimensions found in the PUS and mood-
related variables (anxiety, depression and life satisfaction). To avoid over-representation
of high educational level women, all correlational analyses have been done weighting the
sample to resemble to the population structure.
Internal evidence of convergent validity between the two subscales of the PUS instru-
ment was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE). This was done using the
method described in Fornell and Larcker (1981), with values above 0.50 considered sat-
isfactory (Hair et al., 2009). Evidence of discriminant validity between the two scales in
the instrument was determined by comparing whether the AVE values for each scale were
higher than the square of the correlation between them (Fornell-Larcker criterion).
In order to improve the interpretation of the results of the questionnaire, we constructed
norm-referenced scores for each of the two subscales. To determine whether it was nec-
essary to differentiate between the sexes, an independent samples weighted t test was
performed.
Results
We first performed an EFA with a subsample of 305 subjects. Prior to this analysis, we
confirmed the suitability of the data for EFA via the KMO test (KMO = 0.87) and Bar-
tlett’s test (p ≤ 0.001). An initial EFA was done to confirm whether the data fitted to an
essentially unidimensional structure, which gave an unsatisfactory fit (Table 2). Despite the
value of GFI and TLI being greater than 0.95, indicating an adequate fit, neither RMSEA
nor RMSR gave an acceptable fit, and in addition, the PA suggested the extraction of two
factors.
We subsequently performed a second EFA to determine the fit of the two-dimensional
structure, which produced an adequate fit with a GFI and TLI that was higher than the first
Table 2. Exploratory factor Unidimen- Bidimensional Bidimen-

analysis of the PUS questionnaire sional EFA EFA1 sional
EFA2
GFI 0.95 0.99 0.99

TLI 0.95 0.99 0.99
RMSEA 0.10 0.05 0.06
RMSR 0.12 0.06 0.06
Explained variance 48.4% 61.3% 63.68%
Note. n = 305; GFI goodness of fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index;

RMSR root mean square of residuals; RMSEA root mean square error
of approximation; unidimensional EFA, single factor model using 20
items; bidimensional EFA1, two-factor model with 20 items; bidimen-
sional EFA2, two-factor model using 18 items
13
EFA and an acceptable value of RMSEA and RMSR (see Table 2). However, we elimi-
nated two items from the test (items 5 and 10) as they loaded low and equally on both
factors. They were also removed for theoretical reasons as they assessed similar aspects as
other items with higher factor loadings. The test was reduced to 18 items, which were ana-
lysed by a third EFA, giving adequate fit supported by the GFI and TLI being greater than
0.95, the explained variance and the RMSEA giving a value between 0.05 and 0.08 as well
as the RMSR being lower than 0.08. The fit indices of all three EFAs are shown in Table 2.
The correlation between factors was 0.59. These results indicate that the test can be
understood as a bidimensional scale. Based on the distribution of the items in each of the
factors, the first factor could be called “negative social comparison” and the second “addic-
tive consequences”.
The bidimensional model was tested via a CFA with 698 subjects and 18 items. Table 3
shows the values for CFI and RMSEA indicating a good fit. It also shows the factor load-
ings, which were very high in both factors. In addition, the table includes all the discrimi-
nation indices (DI), which were all higher than 0.56 in the first factor and higher than 0.55
in the second factor. Items 1, 12 and 17 showed impact but none of them exhibited gender
DIF.
The first PUS factor, called “negative social comparison”, had an alpha coefficient of
0.94 and an omega coefficient of 0.94. The second PUS factor, called “addictive conse-
quences”, had an alpha coefficient of 0.91 and an omega coefficient of 0.91.
Convergent validity between scales was acceptable for both the negative social com-
parison factor (AVE = 0.60) and the addictive consequences factor (AVE = 0.56), with
AVE values above 0.5. For discriminant validity, we compared the square of the correlation
between the two factors (r2xy = 0.26) with the value of AVE for each factor. As the value of
AVE for both factors was greater than the square of the correlation, adequate evidence of
discriminant validity between scales was found.
With regard to the relationships with other variables, Table 4 shows the Pearson cor-
relations between problematic use of SNs, as measured using the new PUS instrument, and
the variables depression, anxiety and satisfaction. The correlation between the HADS sub-
scales (anxiety and depression) and the PUS subscales (negative comparison and addictive
consequences) was statistically significant and positive. In addition, the SWLS (satisfac-
tion) correlated negatively with both PUS subscales.
Similarly, the canonical correlation between the two PUS subscales and the three psy-
chological trait scales (anxiety, depression and satisfaction) was 0.52, and the redundancy
coefficient was 0.16 (16% common variance).
Finally, we norm-referenced the scores based on percentiles differentiating between the
sexes, as the independent sample weighted t test indicated statistically significant differ-
ences. Women had significantly higher scores than men in both the negative social compar-
ison subscale (p = 0.003) and the addictive consequences subscale (p = 0.016). The norm-
referenced scores for negative social comparison and addictive consequences for both men
and women are shown in Table 5 and 6, respectively.
Discussion and Conclusions
The objective of our study was to develop and validate the problematic use of SNs (PUS)
scale. The PUS is novel because (i) it is the only self-report, as far we know, that not only
studies the potential addiction-related consequences of SNs use but also focuses on how
13
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis and discrimination index for the items in the PUS questionnaire
Items F.L. Social F.L. Addictive DI1 DI2
comparison consequences
1 When I see content from influencers or celebrities, I feel inferior 0.73 0.60
2 When I see content from my friends or people I know, I feel inferior 0.81 0.74
3 When I’m not on social networks, I feel an impulse to go online that is hard to resist 0.78 0.68
4 When I publish my content, I worry that it will be made fun of 0.68 0.62
5 When I see what celebrities or influencers publish, I feel bad about myself 0.80 0.64
6 When I see what my contacts publish, I feel that they have a better life than me 0.78 0.66
7 I spend too much time using social networks 0.71 0.67
8 I don’t get enough sleep because of using social networks 0.70 0.55
9 I have tried to spend less time on social networks, but I have not been successful 0.72 0.61
10 Most of my friends and people I know on social networks are happier than I am 0.72 0.57
11 I compare myself with other people who I think are better than me on social networks 0.89 0.73
12 I worry that my posts will not have enough positive interactions 0.76 0.64
13 I worry a lot about what people might think of my content 0.77 0.68
14 I feel lonely when I see what my contacts post on social networks 0.80 0.65
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2023) 21:2122–2137
15 My academic or work performance has declined because of using social networks 0.76 0.58
16 People close to me have complained because I use social networks too much 0.71 0.59
17 I feel that if I am not connected to social networks, I am missing out on something 0.74 0.60
18 Using social networks, I lose track of time and ignore important tasks I have outstanding 0.81 0.69
CFI 0.95
TLI 0.94
RMSEA (90% CI) 0.07(0.068–0.079)
Note. n = 698; F.L. factor loadings; CFI comparative fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSR root mean square of residuals; RMSEA (90% CI) root mean square error of
approximation (90% confidence intervals); DI1 discrimination index of the items in the first factor, called negative social comparison; DI2 discrimination index of the items in
the second factor, called addictive consequences
2129
13
Table 4. Pearson correlations between the negative social comparison subscale, addictive consequences
subscale, the HADS questionnaire, and the SWLS scale
Anxiety Depression Satisfaction
Comparison 0.46** 0.46** −0.35**

Addictive 0.22** 0.21** −0.15**
**p ≤ 0.001
Note: N = 1003; Anxiety: the HADS subscale measuring anxiety; Depression: the HADS subscale measur-
ing depression; Satisfaction: satisfaction with life scale; Comparison: the negative social comparison on
SNs subscale from the problematic use of SNs scale (PUS); Addictive: the addictive consequences subscale
from the problematic use of SNs scale (PUS)
Table 5. Norm-referenced Men Women

scores for the negative social
comparison subscale divided Direct score Percentile Direct score Percentile
by sex
10 20 10 15
11 24 11 20
12 37 12 27
13 49 13 33
14 53 14 39
15 56 15 42
16 61 16 47
17 64 17 54
18 66 18 58
19 69 19 61
20 72 20 70
21 80 21 78
22 82 22 79
23 85 23 83
24–25 87 24 85
26 93 25 86
27 94 26 88
28 95 27 89
29 96 28 92
30 97 29 93
31 98 30 94
32–40 99 31–32 95
33–34 96
35 98
36–40 99
SNs are used in a comparative way; and (ii) it assesses the problematic use of SNs without
focusing on any specific social network, and thus, it can be generalized to different SNs.
In terms of internal structure, the new PUS scale demonstrated a bidimensional struc-
ture with two strongly correlated dimensions. Therefore, on the one hand, it is possible
13
Table 6. Norm-referenced scores Men Women

for the addictive consequences
subscale divided by sex Direct score Percentile Direct score Percentile
8 14 8 17
9 16 9 23
10 21 10 30
11 30 11 37
12 32 12 42
13 36 13 47
14 39 14 53
15 47 15 57
16 56 16 61
17 60 17 67
18 72 18 75
19 75 19 76
20 78 20 82
21 79 21 86
22 86 22 88
23 88 23 90
24 90 24 92
25 92 25 93
26 97 26 96
27–30 98 27 97
31–40 99 28 98
29 98
30–40 99
to obtain a score for each of the subscales for more specific information about problem-
atic use of SNs. On the other hand, considering the high correlation of the subscales, a
total problematic use score could also be obtained. One of the subscales, addictive conse-
quences, can be considered similar to other scales that evaluate the addictive use of SNs in
order to compare its structure. Most of the scales that assess this addictive use of SNs are
unidimensional, such as the Social Media Disorder Scale (Van Den Eijnden et al., 2016),
the Facebook Intrusion Questionnaire (FIQ) from Elphinston and Noller (2011) and the
Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2012) which focuses on Facebook,
as well as its adaptation for SNs in general, the Bergen Social Media Addiction scale
(Andreassen et al., 2016). However, there are other scales that evaluate this kind of SNs
use with multidimensional factor structures, such as the TDI-RS from Chóliz et al. (2016).
The second factor (i.e. negative social comparison) is more difficult to compare, as
there are no existing questionnaires that assess the same concept. This factor refers to
the upward social comparison that could take place in the use of SNs and that may be
detrimental to psychological well-being (Verduyn et al., 2020). Pre-existing question-
naires that have assessed social comparison on SNs are of two types: (i) the ones devel-
oped exclusively for a specific study with no intention of being validated and (ii) the
ones adapted from questionnaires addressing social comparison in general which have
been reformulated a fit a SNs environment. This latter group includes the questionnaire
13
created in the 2017 study by Liu et al. in which the authors adapted a questionnaire for
assessing social comparison in a day-to-day non-virtual context so that it could be used
to assess upward comparisons on SNs. In the study, the authors performed a factorial
analysis that showed a unidimensional structure, as did Hanna et al. (2017).
Our new PUS instrument demonstrated excellent reliability according to the Euro-
pean model of test quality assessment (Muñiz, 2018), both in the negative social com-
parison (α = 0.94; ω = 0.94) and addictive consequences (α = 0.91; ω = 0.91) sub-
scales. The latter demonstrated greater reliability than other questionnaires that measure
the addictive use of SNs, such as the short version of the Social Media Disorder Scale
(Van Den Eijnden et al., 2016), the Facebook Intrusion Questionnaire (Elphinston &
Noller, 2011), the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2012) and the
Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016). In addition, none of
the items in the PUS scale exhibited DIF based on sex, and all items had high discrimi-
natory power. It is not possible to compare the reliability of the negative social com-
parison subscale with validated questionnaires that measure negative comparative use of
SNs as we did not find any. However, it exhibited notably higher reliability than the “ad
hoc” questionnaires used by other authors (Cramer et al., 2016; Schmuck et al., 2019;
Tandoc et al., 2015).
In terms of evidence of validity related to other variables, the two PUS subscales
demonstrated strong positive correlations with both anxiety and depression and a nega-
tive correlation with life satisfaction. Furthermore, the canonical correlation also indicates
the relationship between these two subsets. This is consistent with previous studies that
have found a relationship between the use of SNs for comparisons and anxiety and depres-
sion (Hussain & Griffiths, 2018) as well as with dissatisfaction with life (Verduyn et al.,
2017). Also, it is consistent with previous studies that have found a relationship between
the addictive use of SNs and anxiety and depression (Barbar et al., 2021; Keles et al., 2020;
Malaeb et al., n.d.; Seabrook et al., 2016; Youssef et al., 2021) and lower levels of psycho-
logical well-being (Arias-de la Torre et al., 2020; Huang, 2017).
It is worth highlighting the differences between the PUS subscales. The negative social
comparison subscale correlated more strongly with depression, anxiety and dissatisfaction
with life than the addictive consequences subscale. Consequently, this may indicate the
importance of evaluating the social comparison carried out in SNs in the evaluation of the
problematic use of SNs in addition to its addictive consequences. This importance of social
comparison, even over and above that of addictive traits, has already been highlighted by
other studies (Keles et al., 2020).
The present study comes with some limitations. Firstly, the sampling was not strictly
random, which means that any generalization will be limited. In addition, the sample is
mainly comprised of highly qualified women. In order to address the latter, weighting to
population has been calculated, but it is still a limitation to be taken into consideration.
We did not obtain data from under 18 years old, which means that it might be useful to
replicate this study with minors. Additionally, data was collected during the Covid-19 lock-
down which may have increased problematic and non-problematic use of SNs (Brailovs-
kaia & Margraf, 2021).
In conclusion, the present study has developed a new scale for the assessment of the
problematic use of SNs. The instrument is composed of 18 items divided into two sub-
scales: addictive consequences and negative social comparison. The instrument demon-
strated excellent psychometric properties. This new tool will allow a more complete assess-
ment of the inappropriate use of SNs by not only assessing the consequences of such use
but also the tendency to use of SNs to make interpersonal comparisons. In addition, we
13
have created two normative percentile scales differentiating between sexes in each of the
two subscales.
Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This
investigation has been supported by a predoctoral grant from the Principality of Asturias (BP19–032).
Declarations
The study was not explicitly reviewed by an Ethics Committee, given that this is not required by our Univer-
sity of Oviedo, nor by the national guidelines established in the Code of Ethics of the Spanish Psychological
Association. There are several reasons why an explicit approval by an Ethics Committee was not necessary:
the participants evaluated were adults, the evaluation was voluntarily accepted, that is, an implicit informed
consent is assumed, and the data is treated anonymously and confidentially. In addition, all the recommen-
dations established in ISO-10667 Standard for the evaluation of people were strictly followed. The whole
evaluation process and the use of the measuring instruments were carried out always following the Deonto-
logical Code of the Spanish Psychological Association (2010), as well as the International Test Commission
Guidelines for Test Use (2013).
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Allahverdi, F. Z. (2021). The relationship between the items of the social media disorder scale and per-
ceived social media addiction. Current Psychology, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01314-x
American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA] &
National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]. (2014). Standards for the development
and use of tests: The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. American Educational
Research Association.
Andreassen, C. S., Billieux, J., Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., Demetrovics, Z., Mazzoni, E., & Pallesen, S.
(2016). The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of
psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30(2),
252–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000160
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook addic-
tion scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.
501-517
Appel, H., Crusius, J., & Gerlach, A. L. (2015). Social comparison, envy, and depression on Facebook: A
study looking at the effects of high comparison standards on depressed individuals. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 34(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.006
Arias-de la Torre, J., Puigdomenech, E., García, X., Valderas, J. M., Eiroa-Orosa, F. J., Fernández-Villa,
T., Molina, A. J., Martín, V., Serrno-Blanco, A., Alonso, J., & Espallargues, M. (2020). Relationship
between depression and the use of mobile technologies and social media among adolescents: Umbrella
review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e16388. https://doi.org/10.2196/16388
13
Bányai, F., Zsila, Á., Király, O., Maraz, A., Elekes, Z., Griffiths, M. D., Andreassen, C. S., & Demetrovics,
Z. (2017). Problematic social media use: Results from a large- scale nationally representative adoles-
cent sample. PLoS One, 12(1), e0169839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169839
Barbar, S., Haddad, C., Sacre, H., Dagher, D., Akel, M., Kheir, N., Salameh, P., Hallit, S., & Obeid, S.
(2021). Factors associated with problematic social media use among a sample of Lebanese adults: The
mediating role of emotional intelligence. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57(3), 1313–1322. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12692
Blanca, M. J., & Bendayan, R. (2018). Spanish version of the Phubbing Scale: Internet addiction. Facebook
intrusion, and fear of missing out as correlates. Psicothema, 30(4), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.7334/
psicothema2018.153
Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2021). The relationship between burden caused by Coronavirus (Covid-
19), addictive social media use, sense of control and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 119,
106720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106720
Calderón, G. C., Navarro, G. D., Lorenzo, S. U., & Ferrando, P. P. (2019). Multidimensional or essentially
unidimensional? A multi-faceted factor-analytic approach for assessing the dimensionality of tests and
items. Psicothema, 31(4), 450. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.153
Caplan, S. E. (2010). Theory and measurement of generalized problematic Internet use: A two-step
approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.
012
Charter, R. A. (2003). A breakdown of reliability coefficients by test type and reliability method, and the
clinical implications of low reliability. The Journal of General Psychology, 130(3), 290–304. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00221300309601160
Chóliz, M., Marco, C., & Chóliz, C. (2016). AdicTecno: Programa de prevención de las adicciónes tec-
nológicas. TEA Ediciones.
Cramer, E. M., Song, H., & Drent, A. M. (2016). Social comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective
consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 739–746.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049
Cronbach, L.J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
De Lenne, O., Vandenbosch, L., Eggermont, S., Karsay, K., & Trekels, J. (2018). Picture-perfect lives on
social media: A cross-national study on the role of media ideals in adolescent well-being. Media Psy-
chology, 23(1), 52–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1554494
De Vries, D. A., & Kühne, R. (2015). Facebook and self-perception: Individual susceptibility to negative
social comparison on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 217–221. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.029
De Vries, D. A., Möller, A. M., Wieringa, M. S., Eigenraam, A. W., & Hamelink, K. (2018). Social com-
parison as the thief of joy: Emotional consequences of viewing strangers’ Instagram posts. Media Psy-
Deontological Code of the Spanish Psychological Association (2010). Madrid: Consejo General de Cole-
gios Oficiales de Psicólogos (www.cop.es). Accessed 15 Mar 2021
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of test development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for roman-
tic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(11),
631–635. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0318
Evers, A., Muñiz, J., Hagemeister, C., Høstmælingen, A., Lindley, P., Sjöberg, A., & Bartram, D. (2013).
Assessing the quality of tests: Revision of the EFPA review model. Psicothema, 25(3), 283–291.
https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.97
Feijóo, S., Foody, M., Norman, J. O. H., Pichel, R., & Rial, A. (2021). Cyberbullies, the cyberbullied, and
problematic internet use: Some reasonable similarities. Psicothema, 33(2), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.
7334/psicothema2020.209
Ferrando Piera, P. J. (2021). Seven decades of factor analysis: From Yela to the present day. Psicothema,
33(3), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.24
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Frost, R. L., & Rickwood, D. J. (2017). A systematic review of the mental health outcomes associated with
Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.001
13
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a
scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129–142.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129
Gilmour, J., Machin, T., Brownlow, C., & Jeffries, C. (2020). Facebook-based social support and health: A
systematic review. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(3), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000246
Gómez-Benito, J., Hidalgo, M. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). Effectiveness of combining statistical tests and
effect sizes when using logistic discriminant function regression to detect differential item functioning
for polytomous items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(5), 875–897. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013164413492419
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pren-
tice Hall.
Hanna, E., Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., Jerald, M., Reed, L., Giaccardi, S., & Lippman, J. R. (2017). Con-
tributions of social comparison and self-objectification in mediating associations between Facebook
use and emergent adults’ psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Network-
ing, 20(3), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0247
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for the indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2016.0758
Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Problematic social networking site use and comorbid psychiatric
disorders: A systematic review of recent large-scale studies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 686. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00686
Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). The associations between problematic social networking site use
and sleep quality, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety and stress. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 686–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00175-1
IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. [Computer
software].
International Test Commission Guidelines for Test Use (2013). International Test Commission: www.intes
tcom.org. Accessed 15 Mar 2021
Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2020). A systematic review: The influence of social media on
depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence
and Youth, 25(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1590851
Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2015). Test development process. In S.
Lane, M. R. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (2nd ed., pp. 3–18).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The case of
Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009
Liu, Q. Q., Zhou, Z. K., Yang, X. J., Niu, G. F., Tian, Y., & Fan, C. Y. (2017). Upward social comparison
on social network sites and depressive symptoms: A moderated mediation model of self-esteem and
optimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.
03.037
Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis facto-
rial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3),
1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory
and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6),
497–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794
Luong, K. T., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Frampton, J. (2019). Temporal self impacts on media exposure
& effects: A test of the Selective Exposure Self-and Affect-Management (SESAM) model. Media Psy-
Malaeb, D., Salameh, P., Barbar, S., Awad, E., Haddad, C., Hallit, R., Sacre, H., Akel, M., Obeid, S., &
Hallit, S. (2021). Problematic social media use and mental health (depression, anxiety, and insom-
nia) among Lebanese adults: Any mediating effect of stress? Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57(2),
539–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12576
Marino, C., Gini, G., Vieno, A., & Spada, M. M. (2018a). A comprehensive meta-analysis on problematic
Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.009
13
Marino, C., Gini, G., Vieno, A., & Spada, M. M. (2018b). The associations between problematic Facebook
use, psychological distress and well-being among adolescents and young adults: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 226, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.
007
Marino, C., Vieno, A., Altoè, G., & Spada, M. M. (2016). Factorial validity of the Problematic Facebook
Use Scale for adolescents and young adults. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(1), 5–10. https://doi.
org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.004
Matute, H. (2016). Adicción, abuso o uso problemático de Internet. In E. En Echeburúa (Ed.), Abuso de
Internet ¿Antesala para la adicción al juego de azar online? (pp. 31–46). Pirámide.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
Muñiz, J. (2018). Introducción a la psicometría. Pirámide.
Muñiz, J., Fidalgo, A. M., García-Cueto, E., Martínez, R., & Moreno, R. (2005). Item Analysis. La Muralla.
Muñiz, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2019). Diez pasos para la construcción de un test. Psicothema, 31(1),
7–16. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.291
Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-nor-
mal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 45(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
Muthén, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user’s
guide. Muthén & Muthén.
Penfield, R. D., & Giacobbi Jr., P. R. (2004). Applying a score confidence interval to Aiken’s item content-
relevance index. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8(4), 213–225. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327841mpee0804_3
Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social Media Effects on Young Women´s Body Image Concerns: Theoretical Per-
spectives and an Agenda for Research. Sex Roles, 71(11-12), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-014-0384-6
Quintana, J. M., Padierna, A., Esteban, C., Arostegui, I., Bilbao, A., & Ruiz, I. (2003). Evaluation of the
psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 107(3), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00062.x
Schmuck, D., Karsay, K., Matthes, J., & Stevic, A. (2019). “Looking Up and Feeling Down”. The influence
of mobile social networking site use on upward social comparison, self-esteem, and well-being of adult
smartphone users. Telematics and Informatics, 42, 101240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101240
Seabrook, E. M., Kern, M. L., & Rickard, N. S. (2016). Social networking sites, depression, and anxiety:
A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(4), e50. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.
5842
Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Evidencia de validez basada en el contenido del test. Psicothema,
26(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256
Suárez-Alvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano Fernández, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018).
Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–158. https://
doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33
Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P., & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college stu-
dents: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2014.10.053
Terol, M. C., López-Roig, S., Rodríguez-Marín, J., Martí-Aragón, M., Pastor, M. A., & Reig, M. T. (2007).
Propiedades psicométricas de la escala hospitalaria de ansiedad y depresión (had) en población espa-
ñola. Ansiedad y Estrés, 13(2-3), 163–176.
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items
with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Vahedi, Z. & Zannella, L. (2021). The association between self-reported depressive symptoms and the use
of social networking sites (SNS): A meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-019-0150-6
Van Den Eijnden, R. J., Lemmens, J. S., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The social media disorder scale. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 61, 478–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.038
Vázquez, C., Duque, A., & Hervás, G. (2013). Satisfaction with life scale in a representative sample of
Spanish adults: Validation and normative data. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.82
Verduyn, P., Gugushvili, N., Massar, K., Täht, K., & Kross, E. (2020). Social comparison on social network-
ing sites. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.002
Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or
undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274–302.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033
13
Vigil-Colet, A., Navarro-González, D., & Morales-Vives, F. (2020). To reverse or to not reverse Likert-type
items: That is the question. Psicothema, 32(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.286
Yoon, S., Kleinman, M., Mertz, J., & Brannick, M. (2019). Is social network site usage related to depres-
sion? A meta-analysis of Facebook-depression relations. Journal of Affective Disorders, 248, 65–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.01.026
Youssef, L., Hallit, R., Akel, M., Kheir, N., Obeid, S., & Hallit, S. (2021). Social media use disorder and
alexithymia: any association between the two? Results of a cross-sectional study among Lebanese
adults. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12506
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scan-
dinavica, 67(6), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
[email protected]

Problematic Social Network Use Structure and Asses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problematic Social Network Use Structure and Asses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problematic Social Network Use Structure and Asses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2023) 21:2122–2137

Problematic Social Network Use: Structure and Assessment

Covadonga González‑Nuevo1 · Marcelino Cuesta1 · Álvaro Postigo1 ·

Accepted: 11 November 2021 / Published online: 2 December 2021

thus focuses on symptoms usually present in behavioural addiction (Allahverdi, 2021;

In summary, there seems to be a relationship between the development of psycho-

Problematic Use of SNs (PUS) Questionnaire

% Spanish population Men 40.2 23.1 36.7 49

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985)

Attentional Control Scale

We used Cronbach’s (1951) α coefficient and Mcdonald’s (1999) ω coefficient to exam-

Table 2. Exploratory factor Unidimen- Bidimensional Bidimen-

GFI 0.95 0.99 0.99

Note. n = 305; GFI goodness of fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index;

Discussion and Conclusions

Comparison 0.46** 0.46** −0.35**

Table 5. Norm-referenced Men Women

Table 6. Norm-referenced scores Men Women

Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.

You might also like

Comparison 0.46 0.46 −0.35**