ArticleHeliyon2024
Validation of the Chinese version of the Smartphone Distraction Scale.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the Scratch Intensity and Impact Scale (SIIS) in patients with chronic pruritus.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Smartphones in the classroom: power tool or source of distraction? Evidence from a cross-lagged panel study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Preliminary validation of the Suicide Management Competency Scale in a Chinese nurse population: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Psychometric validation of the Chinese-adapted eczema behavior checklist extent scale in pediatric atopic dermatitis patients.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Smartphone Distraction Scale (SDS) is a novel assessment scale for smartphone distraction; it comprises 16 items that cover attention impulsiveness, online vigilance, multitasking, and emotion regulation. This study aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the SDS in college students in China. After translating and culturally adapting the original version of the SDS into Chinese, the scale was tested on a sample of 1302 college students.The validity and reliability were assessed utilizing SPSS 25.0, AMOS 25.0 and Mplus 8.3. Parallel analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed for the validity analysis. Criterion-related validity for the SDS was tested by correlation analysis with the mobile phone addiction scale (MPAI). The reliability analysis was tested by Cronbach's alpha coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). EFA and parallel analysis revealed a three-factor structure. The EFA identified factor loadings on three factors (14 items), explaining a total variance of 60.73 %. The CFA model fit was good (χ
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.