ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2026
Self-Reported Versus Objectively Logged Social Media Use: Implications for Measurement in Eating Disorder Research.
Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2026. 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.
- Self-Reported Versus Objectively Logged Social Media Use: Implications for Measurement in Eating Disorder Research.The International journal of eating disorders · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSelf-reported frequency measures of social media use (e.g., "How often do you use social media?") are convenient, yet their criterion validity against objective behavioral data remains largely untested in eating disorder research. We compared self-reports of TikTok use with objective data extracted from TikTok datafiles.
methodsParticipants (N = 103) including individuals with diagnosed eating disorders (n = 42) completed a Likert-type self-report measure of TikTok use frequency over the past month. Objective data included the total number of TikTok videos delivered, total number of videos "liked" by participants, number of sessions, and number of "binge scroll" sessions (sessions lasting longer than 1 h). Associations were tested using Spearman correlations and negative binomial regressions.
resultsSelf-reports were moderately to strongly correlated with objective indicators: videos delivered (ρ = 0.55), videos liked (ρ = 0.59), sessions (ρ = 0.65), and binge scroll sessions (ρ = 0.47). Importantly, objective use varied substantially within each self-report response category. For example, among participants reporting they "sometimes" used TikTok over the past month, one was delivered 99 videos whereas another was delivered 19,526 videos, representing nearly a 200-fold difference. Eating disorder diagnostic status and symptom severity did not moderate self-report versus objective correspondence; however, statistical power to detect interaction effects was limited. DISCUSSION: Self-report frequency measures of social media are meaningfully correlated with objective indicators but compress substantial behavioral variability. Clinicians and researchers should interpret self-reports cautiously, particularly when exposure magnitude is clinically relevant, and ought to consider objective data whenever possible.
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.