ArticlePloS one2026
Psychometric validation of the English version of the digital wellbeing questionnaire for young adults.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital technologies increasingly impact daily life. Digital wellbeing is emerging as a multidimensional construct encompassing emotional regulation, autonomy, social connection, and respectful online interactions.
objectiveThis study aimed to validate the English version of the 13-item Digital Wellbeing Questionnaire (DWBQ) in young adults. Methods: Data were collected via quota sampling on Prolific, an online crowdsourcing platform. The final sample comprised 1,853 young adults (US n = 933, UK n = 920), including 892 women, 871 men, and 90 non-binary participants., aged 18-25. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measurement invariance testing (across gender and country), reliability analysis, and convergent validity assessments (with the Digital Flourishing Scale and the Digital Stress Scale) were conducted.
resultsCFA confirmed the four-factor structure (emotional resilience, agency, social connection, and communion), with good model fit (CFI = .969, TLI = .959, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .038). The DWBQ showed strong internal reliability (α ≥ .80) and measurement invariance across both gender and country. Convergent validity was supported by positive correlations with digital flourishing and negative associations with digital stress. Sociodemographic factors and smartphone use patterns were significantly associated with DWBQ subscales, with gender and relationship status particularly influencing agency and emotional resilience.
conclusionsThe English version of the 13-item DWBQ is a valid and reliable measure of digital wellbeing among young adults in the US and UK. It offers a concise tool for research, educational, and clinical use.
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.