ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
The Bergen Facebook addiction scale: a reliability generalization meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between Problematic TikTok Use and Depression in University Students: The Mediating Role of Insomnia.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Bergen Facebook addiction scale (BFAS) is a screening instrument frequently used to evaluate Facebook addiction. However, its reliability varies considerably across studies. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the BFAS and its adaptation, the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS), and to identify which study characteristics are associated with this reliability. We performed a reliability generalization meta-analysis involving 173,641 participants across 127 articles, which reported 147 Cronbach's alpha values for internal consistency. The random-effects model revealed that the pooled Cronbach's alpha values were 0.8535 (95% CI [0.8409, 0.8660]) for the BFAS and 0.8248 (95% CI [0.8116, 0.8380]) for the BSMAS. Moderator analyses indicated that the mean and standard deviation of the total scores accounted for 10.06 and 36.7% of the total variability in the BFAS alpha values, respectively. For the BSMAS, the standard deviation of the total scores and sample size accounted for 13.54 and 10.22% of the total variability alpha values, respectively. Meta-ANOVA analyses revealed that none of the categorical variables significantly affected the estimated alpha values for either the BFAS or BSMAS. Our findings endorse the BFAS and BSMAS as reliable instruments for measuring social media addiction.
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.