Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42254733›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Does the phubbing scale measure the same construct across sexes? Evidence from a Nigerian sample.

Olga Malas, Dayo Omotoso, Mirko Duradoni, Maciej Załuski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Olga MalasDepartment of Psychology, Sociology and Social Work, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
Dayo OmotosoDepartment of Human Anatomy, Redeemer's University, Ede, Osun State, Nigeria.
Mirko DuradoniDepartment of Human and Social Sciences, Mercatorum University, Rome, Italy.
Maciej ZałuskiChair of Bioethics and Health Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

digital life balanceinvariancephubbingphubbing scalepsychometric validationtechnological addictions

Identifiers

PMID42254733
PMCPMC13236879

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.