| Literature DB >> 34010148 |
Tao Luo1,2, Lixia Qin3, Limei Cheng4, Sheng Wang1, Zijun Zhu1, Jiabing Xu1, Haibo Chen1, Qiaosheng Liu5, Maorong Hu6, Jianqin Tong4, Wei Hao7, Bo Wei1, Yanhui Liao8,9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social media disorder (SMD) is an increasing problem, especially in adolescents. The lack of a consensual classification for SMD hinders the further development of the research field. The six components of Griffiths' biopsychosocial model of addiction have been the most widely used criteria to assess and diagnosis SMD. The Bergen social media addiction scale (BSMAS) based on Griffiths' six criteria is a widely used instrument to assess the symptoms and prevalence of SMD in populations. This study aims to: (1) determine the optimal cut-off point for the BSMAS to identify SMD among Chinese adolescents, and (2) evaluate the contribution of specific criteria to the diagnosis of SMD.Entities:
Keywords: Bergen social media addiction scale (BSMAS); cut-off score; latent profile analysis; social media disorder (SMD)
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34010148 PMCID: PMC8996805 DOI: 10.1556/2006.2021.00025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Addict ISSN: 2062-5871 Impact factor: 6.756
Sample characteristics
| Clinical sample ( | Community sample ( | |
| Age | 14.53 (1.21) | 16.23 (1.94) |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 221 (87.7) | 10,321 (47.49) |
| Female | 31 (12.3) | 11,414 (52.51) |
| Middle school stage | ||
| Junior middle school | 176 (69.8) | 10,215 (47.00) |
| Senior middle school | 76 (30.2) | 11,520 (53.00) |
| Social media sites | ||
| 97 (38.5) | 6,954 (32.00) | |
| 152 (60.3) | 13,895 (63.93) | |
| Sina Weibo | 3 (1.2) | 395 (1.82) |
| Others | 0 (0.0) | 491 (2.26) |
| Weekly social media use (hours) | 26.24 (11.34) | 14.87 (15.90) |
Cut-Off Points for the BSMAS based on the clinical diagnostic interviews (n = 252)
| Cut-off points | True positive | True negative | False positive | False negative | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | Youden's index (%) |
| 19 | 28 | 188 | 36 | 0 | 100 | 83.9 | 43.7 | 100 | 85.7 | 83.0 |
| 20 | 28 | 197 | 27 | 0 | 100 | 87.9 | 50.9 | 100 | 89.3 | 87.0 |
| 21 | 28 | 205 | 19 | 0 | 100 | 91.5 | 59.6 | 100 | 92.5 | 91.0 |
| 22 | 28 | 214 | 10 | 0 | 100 | 95.5 | 73.7 | 100 | 96.0 | 95.0 |
| 23 | 27 | 221 | 3 | 1 | 96.4 | 98.6 | 90.0 | 100 | 98.4 | 94.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 25 | 24 | 223 | 1 | 4 | 85.7 | 99.6 | 96.0 | 98.2 | 98.0 | 85.2 |
| 26 | 21 | 224 | 0 | 7 | 75.0 | 100 | 100 | 97.0 | 97.2 | 75.0 |
| 27 | 18 | 224 | 0 | 10 | 64.3 | 100 | 100 | 95.7 | 96.0 | 64.0 |
| 28 | 14 | 224 | 0 | 14 | 50.0 | 100 | 100 | 94.1 | 94.4 | 50.0 |
| 29 | 11 | 224 | 0 | 17 | 39.3 | 100 | 100 | 92.9 | 93.2 | 39.3 |
Note. BSMAS: Bergen social media addiction scale; specificity (true positive/true positive and false negative), sensitivity (true negative/true negative and false positive); accuracy (true positive and true negative/all); PPR: positive predictive rate (true positive/true positive and false positive); NPR: negative predictive rate (true negative/true negative and false negative); Youden's index: defined as sensitivity + specificity – 1.
Comparison between the SMD and non-SMA groups according to cut-off point of 24 in the BSMAS (n = 21,735)
| SMD ( | non-SMD ( |
| |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Gender | |||
| Male | 503 (66.4) | 9,818 (46.8) | <0.001* |
| Female | 255 (33.6) | 11,159 (53.2) | |
Note. SMD: social media disorder; BSMAS: Bergen social media addiction scale; BBIS: brief Barratt impulsiveness scale; RSES: Rosenberg's self-esteem scale.
*: P value was obtained by χ2 test;
**: P values were obtained by Mann-Whitney U test.
Results obtained from the Latent Profile Analysis
| Model | Log-likelihood | Replicated log-likelihood | Nr. Of free parameters | AIC | BIC | SSABIC | Entropy | LMR-LRT test |
|
| 2 classes | −193046.30 | YES | 19 | 325965.88 | 326117.62 | 326057.24 | 0.93 | 5,836.54 | <0.001 |
| 3 classes | −162963.94 | YES | 26 | 312760.48 | 312968.13 | 312885.51 | 0.92 | 13,032.96 | <0.001 |
| 4 classes | −156354.24 | YES | 33 | 302153.70 | 302417.26 | 302312.39 | 0.88 | 10,470.99 | <0.001 |
| 5 classes | −151043.85 | YES | 40 | 296247.67 | 296567.14 | 296440.21 | 0.91 | 5,836.54 | <0.001 |
| 6 classes | – | NO | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Note. AIC: Akaike information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion; SSABIC: sample-size-adjusted Bayesian information criterion; LMRT: Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test.
Fig. 1.The five classes obtained from the latent profile analysis
Comparison of the five latent classes: Testing Equality for Latent Class Predictors (n = 21,735)
| Casual users ( | Regular users ( | Low risk high-engagement users ( | At risk high-engagement users ( | Disordered Users ( | Over test | ||
| Waldx 2 | |||||||
| Gender (Male %) | 44.81a | 45.35b | 42.62c | 54.15d | 63.07e | 197.42 | <0.001 |
| Age (years), Mean (SE) | 15.89 (0.02)a | 16.29 (0.03)b | 16.63 (0.04)c | 16.60 (0.03)c | 16.42 (0.06)d | 442.99 | <0.001 |
| Weekly social media use (min 0.5, max 72, mean 14.87, SD 15.90), Mean (SE) | 9.91 (0.14)a | 14.33 (0.25)b | 18.31 (0.40)c | 25.12 (0.27)d | 31.41 (0.71)e | 701.73 | <0.001 |
| Academic performance (min1, max 5, mean 2.93, SD 1.07), Mean (SE) | 3.06 (0.01)a | 2.86 (0.02)b | 2.96 (0.02)c | 2.75 (0.02)d | 2.58 (0.04)e | 263.95 | <0.001 |
| BBIS (min1, max 4, mean 2.10, SD 0.46), Mean (SE) | 2.01 (0.01)a | 2.23 (0.01)b | 2.11 (0.01)c | 2.34 (0.01)d | 2.44 (0.02)e | 527.67 | <0.001 |
| RSES (min 1, max4, mean 3.00, SD 0.63), Mean (SE) | 3.14 (0.01)a | 2.89 (0.01)b | 3.04 (0.01)c | 2.78 (0.01)d | 2.71 (0.03)e | 358.92 | <0.001 |
Note. Different subscript letters (a, b, c) in the same row reflect significant (P < 0.05) difference between the means while same subscript letters in one row reflect non-significant difference between the means according to pair wised Wald χ2 test of mean equality for latent class predictors in mixture modeling (www.statmodel.com/download/meantest2.pdf).
Endorsement of diagnostic criteria overall and for disordered users, and non-disordered users (n = 21,735)
| Criterion | Cohen's κ | Overall n (%) | Disordered users ( | Non-disordered users ( |
|
| Salience | 0.44 | 738 (3.4) | 344 (45.4) | 394 (1.9) | <0.001* |
| Tolerance | 0.52 | 743 (3.4) | 362 (47.8) | 381 (1.8) | <0.001* |
| Mood modification | 0.46 | 410 (1.9) | 316 (41.7) | 94 (0.4) | <0.001* |
| Relapse | 0.53 | 453 (2.1) | 327 (43.1) | 126 (0.6) | <0.001* |
| Withdrawal | 0.53 | 550 (2.5) | 350 (46.2) | 200 (1.0) | <0.001* |
| Conflict | 0.51 | 470 (2.2) | 323 (42.6) | 147 (0.7) | <0.001* |
Note.*: P value was obtained by χ2 test.
Fig. 2.Conditional inference tree plot predicting social media disorder by Griffiths’ six criteria, age, gender and social media using time (n = 21,375)