ArticleBMC psychology2026
Blurred boundaries in the digital era: a theory-driven development of the digital boundary ambiguity scale (DBAS).
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe increasing integration of digital technologies into romantic relationships has blurred boundaries between personal and public spheres, giving rise to digital boundary ambiguity. Grounded in Boundary Ambiguity Theory and the Relational Turbulence Model, this study aimed to develop and validate the Digital Boundary Ambiguity Scale (DBAS), a multidimensional tool designed to capture couples’ uncertainty and inconsistency in defining acceptable online behaviors.
methodData were collected from adults (N = 673, age range = 18–65) in romantic relationships who actively use social media. Following a pretrial with 40 participants, the 20-item draft scale was administered to 365 individuals for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and to 308 individuals for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Reliability analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, test–retest reliability, and item–total correlations. Criterion validity was examined using the Relational Uncertainty Scale, and additional associations were tested with dyadic trust, aimless internet browsing, and number of social media accounts.
resultsFindings supported a four-factor, 16-item structure comprising clarity of online boundaries, perceived ambiguity, frequency of misunderstandings, and comfort with digital privacy rules. CFA demonstrated good model fit (CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05). Subscales showed acceptable-to-excellent reliability (α = 0.71–0.88; ω = 0.72–0.88). Digital boundary ambiguity negatively correlated with dyadic trust and positively with aimless internet browsing but showed no significant relationship with number of social media accounts. Gender and education differences also emerged, reflecting nuanced digital boundary management.
conclusionThe DBAS provides a valid and reliable instrument for examining digital boundary ambiguity in romantic relationships, offering both theoretical refinement and practical applications for counseling and relational research.
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.