Validity and reliability of an instrument to measure factors associated with screen time in Brazilian students

Abstract

This study analyzed the validity and reliability of an instrument with scales measuring factors associated with screen time in adolescents. Two cross-sectional studies included students for analyses of validity and internal consistency (n=1138, 51.5% boys) and test-retest reproducibility (n=194, 56.2% boys). Individual (attitude, self-efficacy and expectations), social (behaviors, rules, beliefs and family support and support of school members) and physical environmental (home and bedroom equipment) factors of screen time were evaluated. All the scales of the instrument met the statistical criteria of the validity of the exploratory factorial analysis (p<0.001). The exploratory factorial analysis indicated five one-dimensional and three two-factor scales (self-efficacy, expectations and familiar behavior), with factorial loads of 0.56 to 0.88. There were significant correlations between the scores of almost all the scales and the reported screen time (p<0.05). Eight of nine scales/subscales showed Cronbach’s α value being higher than 0.70, and ICC ranged from 0.63 to 0.83. In conclusion, the instrument presented scales with acceptable validity and reliability and can be used to measure factors associated with screen time in Brazilian students.

Comparative Test of Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient, Kr-20, Kr-21, And Split-Half Method

“…Cronbach's alpha (α) assesses the internal consistency and reliability of the test instrument (Wafudu et al, 2022). Cronbach's alpha is recommended to have very good reliability if it ranges between 0.7 and 0.8 (Cheung et al, 2023;Derakhshan et al, 2023;Filho et al, 2021;Kullan et al, 2022). Other research says Cronbach's Alpha is accepted at a value of 0.7 or 0.6" (Taber, 2018).…”

Youth screen use in the ABCD® study

“…Further, cohort effects in this study likely reflected changing technologies over the course of the 2-year trial which may have differentially impacted some age groups rather than others given differences in age, and age-related access and/or use. Others have examined addiction to various screen modalities, including social media, internet and gaming, using reliable and valid measures, many adapted from the same base measures, however are limited by the use of specific sub-populations of youth based on region or culture, ( Barbosa Filho et al, 2021 ) associated factors such as physical activity, ( Vaughn et al, 2019 ) small sample size and cross-sectional methodology. Further, less than 2 % of these scales assess potential clinical significance of screen use ( Browne et al, 2021 ).…”