ArticleScientific reports2025
The binge scrolling scale measures excessive scrolling through a validated three-factor structure.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- From Binge Scrolling to Problematic Technology Use: Fear of Missing Out as a Self-Regulatory Mediator.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this present study, we developed and validated the Binge Scrolling Scale (BSS) to assess excessive scrolling behavior on digital platforms. Following a systematic framework, we conducted the scale development process in nine steps. We first defined the construct based on a comprehensive literature review and generated an initial pool of 20 items, which was refined to 16 items after eliminating redundancy. A 5-point Likert-type scale was adopted, and a pilot study (N = 21) confirmed the clarity and appropriateness of the response options. Content validity was evaluated by 12 experts using a standard method, leading to the exclusion of three items and revision of one item. Cognitive interviews with a pilot sample supported item clarity and interpretability, with 96% inter-coder agreement. We assessed social desirability bias using two items from the Marlowe-Crowne Scale in a sample of 149 participants; low correlations indicated minimal bias. The scale was then administered to three independent samples, for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (N = 262), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (N = 233), and criterion-related validity (N = 222). EFA revealed a three-factor structure-automatic scrolling, negative outcomes, and loss of control-and resulted in a final 12-item version after removing one item with a low loading. CFA confirmed the structure with good model fit. The BSS showed significant positive correlations with other relevant scales, supporting criterion validity. Reliability analyses across all samples indicated high internal consistency (α = 0.83-0.92; ω = 0.82-0.92). These findings suggest that the 12-item BSS is a valid and reliable measure of compulsive binge scrolling.
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.