ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Does the phubbing scale measure the same construct across sexes? Evidence from a Nigerian sample.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Phubbing is associated with excessive use of digital technologies, and the Phubbing Scale (PS) is widely used to measure it. The PS may be influenced by cultural variations, so it is advisable to validate it before applying it in a new cultural context. Phubbing has emerged as a construct of interest in Nigeria, yet no validation studies for the PS have been conducted in this population. Methods: To address this gap, the PS, along with scales measuring technological addictions and digital life balance, was administered to 396 Nigerian university students (18 to 25 years old; 80.6% female). Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to test two 10-item models and one 8-item model. The best-fitting model was subsequently tested. Internal and external validity, and measurement invariance across sexes were assessed. Results: The 8-item correlated two-factor model (PS-8) showed the best results. For PS-8, internal and external validity, and strict measurement invariance across sexes were supported based on global fit indices. However, parameter estimates suggested potential sex-related differences in the construct. In females, factor loadings and the correlation between factors were adequate, whereas in males several items of Factor 2 showed low loadings, and the correlation between factors was negligible. Conclusion: In conclusion, the PS-8 appears suitable for measuring phubbing in this population, although potential sex-related differences should be considered. These differences may stem from psychometric limitations in the Smartphone Obsession factor items and/or from variations in how the PS construct manifests across sexes, which could affect interventions or comparative studies. Considering the limitations of the study, future research will be necessary to corroborate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.