See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346968379

Multiple Screen Addiction Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Article · July 2021

DOI: 10.52911/itall.796758

CITATIONS READS
4 4,313

1 author:

Mustafa Saritepeci
Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi
67 PUBLICATIONS   590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

To determine the effects of design based learning practices in the scope of technology integration on TPACK levels of prospective teachers View project

Ereğli Ödev Politikası View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Saritepeci on 15 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Atıf/ Citation: Saritepeci, M. (2021). Multiple screen addiction scale: validity and reliability study. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning 2(1), 1-
17.

Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/itall
ITALL

Research Article ISSN: 2717-8307

Multiple Screen Addiction Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Mustafa SARITEPECİ *1

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: In daily life, university students spend a significant part of their time in front of screens such as phones, tablets,
Received: 18.09.2020 computers and televisions, as in the general public. Individuals' multi-screen experiences may tend to get out of
Accepted: 24.11.2020 control and turn into a kind of behavioral addiction. Therefore, in this study, it is aimed to develop a valid and
Online: 12.12.2020 reliable measurement tool that can be used in determining the multiple screen addiction levels of university
Published: 29.06.2021 students. For this purpose, the multiscreen addiction form created within the framework of DSM-V criteria and
the literature was applied to 216 students. The collected data were analyzed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As a result of EFA, a structure with 15 items and 3 factors was formed.
Keywords:
There are 8 items in Compulsive Behavior dimension, 3 items in Loss of Control dimension and 4 items in
Multiple screen addiction
Excessive Screen Time dimension. The factor structure determined by EFA was tested with CFA and it was
Screen addiction
determined that the factor structure was suitable. The internal consistency coefficients of the scale were found to
University students
be between .70 and .92. Both monothetic and polythetic formats were used as addiction criteria. It was determined
Scale development
that 4.63% of the participants within the monothetic criterion and 50% of the participants within the framework
of the polythetic criterion were multiple screen addicts.

Çoklu Ekran Bağımlılığı Ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

MAKALE BİLGİ ÖZET
Makale Geçmişi: Günlük yaşamda toplumun genelinde olduğu gibi üniversite öğrencileri de zamanlarının önemli bir bölümünü
Geliş: 18.09.2020 telefon, tablet, bilgisayar, televizyon gibi ekranların başında geçirmektedir. Bireylerin çoklu ekran deneyimleri
Kabul: 24.11.2020 kontrolden çıkma eğilimi gösterebilmekte ve bir tür davranışsal bağımlılığa dönüşebilmektedir. Bundan dolayı bu
Çevrimiçi: 12.12.2020 çalışmada üniversite öğrencilerinin çoklu ekran bağımlılığı düzeylerinin belirlenmesinde kullanılabilecek geçerli
Yayın: 29.06.2021 ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda DSM-V kriterleri ve literatür
çerçevesinde oluşturulan çoklu ekran bağımlılığı formu 216 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Toplanan veriler
açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile çözümlenmiştir. AFA sonucunda 15
Anahtar Kelimeler:
madde ve 3 faktörlü bir yapı oluşmuştur. Compulsive Behavior boyutunda 8, Loss of Control boyutunda 3 ve
Çoklu ekran bağımlılığı
Excessive Screen Time boyutunda 4 madde bulunmaktadır. AFA ile belirlenen faktör yapısı DFA ile test edilmiş
Ekran bağımlılığı
ve faktör yapısının uygun olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Faktör yapısının uygunluğu belirlenen ölçeğin iç tutarlık
Üniversite öğrencileri
katsayıları .70-.92 arasında bulunmuştur. Bağımlılık ölçütü olarak hem monotetik hem de polietik format
Ölçek geliştirme
kullanılmıştır. Monotetik ölçüt kapsamında katılımcıların %4.63’ü, polietik ölçüt çerçevesinde ise katılımcıların
%50’sinin çoklu ekran bağımlısı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

* Corresponding Author, [email protected]

1Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

1. Introduction

Today, devices with screens (TV, Smart Phone, Tablet, PC, etc.) that enable us to reach various multimedia media

have become the most important tools of our daily life (Lin, Kononova, & Chiang, 2019). The use of these devices

for a wide variety of activities and tasks in daily life causes an increase in the dependence of individuals on mobile

devices (Lin et al., 2019) and the Internet service accessed by these devices. Smartphone/Mobile phone and

Internet addiction are described as a type of behavioral addiction (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Cha & Seo, 2018; Jun

& Choi, 2015; Kwon, Lee, et al., 2013) and in the literature, there are numerous studies to understand the

structures they are related to have been conducted (Aljomaa, Qudah, Albursan, Bakhiet, & Abduljabbar, 2016;

Yildiz Durak & Saritepeci, 2019; Gökçearslan, Uluyol, & Şahin, 2018; Kwon, Kim, Cho, & Yang, 2013; Yildiz

Durak, 2019; Young, 1998). However, there are a few studies about multi-screen addiction or screen addiction

(Balhara, Verma, & Bhargava, 2018; Din & Isam, 2019; Khalili-Mahani, Smyrnova, & Kakinami, 2019; Lin et al.,

2019; Lucena, Cheng, Cavalcante, Silva, & Farias Júnior, 2015). In this study, multiple screen addiction is

considered as a behavioral addiction, as in smartphone addiction or Internet addiction. Accordingly, multi-screen

addiction can be expressed as excessive and obsessive media consumption with more than one device with

screens (Balhara et al., 2018; Bölükbaşı-Macit & Kavafoğlu, 2019; Lin et al., 2019). The most important difference

between multi-screen addiction and smartphone addiction or Internet addiction is that it does not express a

situation limited to a single tool or service. One of the important indicators of behavioral addiction is that the

person's lack or restriction of access to an object or situation creates discomfort. In multi-screen addiction, not

having access to only one device with a screen such as a phone, tablet, computer or TV is not an important

indicator on its own. It expresses the status that an individual experiences discomfort and deprivation when they

lose access to all or several of these devices at the same time (Lin, Kononova & Chiang, 2019).

In the Digital-2020 report, in Turkey, the 16-64 age range in which Internet users watch TV for 3 hours per day,

use 7.5 hours of Internet, and it is understood that an average 1-hour play console games (We Are Social, 2020).

Watching various video content is not just limited to TV. Therewithal, the behavior of watching videos over the

Internet with various mobile devices is closely related to this situation. In support of this, when the data related

to monitoring online daily video published by Statista (2019) are analyzed, Turkey and Saudi Arabia with a daily

rate of 64% watch online videos are the countries with the highest rate. Accordingly, it can be said that university

students whose social interaction has been limited due to the Covid-19 epidemic have increased or increase the

time they spend with multiple screens (Phone, Tablet, PC, TV) and they face the risk of turning into an addiction.

[2]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

This situation, in which interaction with people other than family members is limited, may cause individuals to

experience stress from various angles and spend more time on screens to overcome this stress. Although screens

help overcome the stress experienced in such a situation, it can be said that the individual can significantly

increase the risk of developing multiple screen addiction (Khalili-Mahani et al., 2019). This type of addiction may

have several negative behavioral, social, and health consequences for individuals (Chang et al., 2018; Kardaras,

2016; Mozafarian et al., 2017; Sarojini, Gayathri, & Priya, 2019; Seaward, 2020). Accordingly, it can be said that it

is important to determine the level of multiple screen addiction, which is an important risk factor for university

students. In this context, this study, it is aimed to create a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used

to determine the multi-screen addiction levels of university students.

2. Method

This research is a valid and reliable scale development study to determine the multiple screen addiction levels of

university students.

2.1. Participant

This study was carried out with the voluntary participation of students who continue their undergraduate

education in various higher education institutions in Turkey. Appropriate/purposeful sampling method, which

is more convenient for voluntary participation, was used in determining the study group. 69% of the 216 students

included in the study were women and 31% were men (See Table 1). When the distribution of the participant

group, which has an average age of 21.72, according to the class level is examined, the highest participation is

composed of the first-grade students with a rate of 39.4%. When the time spent by the participants with devices

with screens is examined, it is seen that they use mobile phones for an average of 6.10 hours per day and a PC or

Tablet PC for 3.00 hours per day and watch TV for an average of 1.63 hours per day.

[3]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

Table 1.

Personal data of participants

Options f %

Gender Female 149 69.0

Male 67 31.0

Age Mean=21.72; SD=3.44; Min=17 Max=39

Class Level 1 85 39.4

2 60 27.8

3 22 10.2

4 49 22.7

TV Watching Time (hours) Mean=1.63; SD=1.62; Min=.00 Max=8.00

Daily use of PC or Tablet (hours) Mean=3.00; SD=3.56; Min=.00 Max=16.00

Daily use of Smart Phone (hours) Mean=6.10; SD=3.35; Min=.00 Max=16.00

2.2. Scale Development Process

In the development of the multi-screen addiction scale, first of all, international studies on screen addiction were

examined. Following this, various research and various measurement tools developed regarding smartphone

addiction, Internet addiction, problematic technology usage, etc., which have various similarities, have no clear

boundaries between them, and are even transient in certain situations, are examined. In addition, the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-V Internet Gaming Disorder addiction indicators (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013) and Internet addiction, some of the indicators associated with smartphone

addiction have been thought to be important factors for screen addiction. In this context, various smartphone

addiction (Kwon et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2014) and Internet addiction scales (Chen, Weng, Su, Wu, & Yang, 2003;

Young, 1998) and studies on screen addiction instruments (Lin, Kononova, & Chiang, 2019) used were studied.

Within the scope of the literature review by the researcher, an item pool of 18 items was created to take into

consideration DSM-V Internet Gaming Disorder indicators, the biopsychosocial framework presented by

Griffiths (2005), and internet addiction diagnostic criteria determined by Young (1998). The pool of draft items

was examined in terms of clarity, language, suitability to the target audience, and spelling check by a linguist.

Following this, a draft scale form was sent to 3 volunteer university students, and the compliance of the items

[4]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

with the target audience was checked with an online focus group interview. As a result of the focus group

interview, one item that was not found to be understandable due to its leading to different implications was

removed from the scale. The 17-item draft "Multi-Screen Addiction Scale Expert Opinion" form was sent to 3

experts related to scale development and the research topic. They examined each item in terms of “appropriate”,

“not appropriate”, “should be corrected” options and added their opinions about the items as “explanation”

where they deemed necessary. In line with expert opinions, two experts shared the opinion that an item should

be corrected, and one expert shared the opinion that it was not a necessary item. Therefore, it was decided that it

would be more appropriate to remove this controversial item from the scale form. In addition, various correction

suggestions were made for 5 items and changes were made in the items in line with these suggestions by the

researcher. As a result, a 5-point Likert type Multiple Screen Addiction Scale form consisting of 16 items was

created.

2.3. Data Collection

With the data collection tool consisting of personal information form and MSAS, data from university students

were collected online on a voluntary basis. A “Participant Consent Form” was presented before the data collection

tool to ensure voluntary participation and provide detailed information to the participants regarding attendance

and leaving the study. If the participant approves this form, the data collection tool was automatically sent to

her/him. Otherwise, no data collection tool was sent to the participant, and it was provided to leave the

implementation process. The implementation of the data collection tool covers 3-5 minutes. 227 students

continuing their education at different universities responded to the data collection tool consisting of 22 items, 6

in the personal information form and 16 in the MSAS scale. For various reasons (having extreme values or giving

the same answer to all items) 11 participants' data were extracted and analyzed were carried out with data

collected from 216 participants.

2.4. Data Analysis

In this study, the scope and construct validity of the multi-screen addiction scale were tried to be determined. For

this purpose, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were conducted. In addition, 3 field experts, who have

at least a doctorate degree and experienced in scale development and problematic technology use, were examined

the scale in terms of content validity. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was calculated to determine the

reliability level of the final scale form created with EFA and CFA. The prevalence of multiple screen addiction

among the participants was determined within the framework of polythetic and monothetic criteria.

[5]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

3. Result

3.1. Multiple Screen Addiction Scale (MSAS) Exploratory Factor Analysis

The Kaiser Meyer Olkin coefficient of the data collected for MSAS was calculated as .92 and this value is above

the acceptable value of .6 (Field, 2009; Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2007), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is

significant at the p <.01 level (𝑥 2 =1874.02, p=.00). Accordingly, it can be said that the MSAS data set is suitable for

EFA (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). In order to determine the 16-item MSAS factor structure, factors with

an eigenvalue greater than 1 and at least 5% (Seçer, 2013) were taken into account within the framework of the

Kaiser-Guttman principle. In addition, the lower limit of item factor load was determined as .30. It was decided

to exclude items with a factor loading of less than .30 from the scale (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç-Çakmak, Akgün,

Karadeniz, & Demirel, 2017). In determining the construct validity with EFA, starting from the prediction that

possible factors of the MSAS scale would be related, the direct-oblimin rotation technique was used. The reason

for using direct-oblimin as a rotation technique is the prediction that the factors that made up the multiple screen

dependency will be related (Büyüköztürk, 2002; Saritepeci, 2018). As a result of the analysis, it was determined

that there are three factors (Factor 1: 7.63, Factor 2: 1.48; Factor 3: 1.07) with an eigenvalue greater than 1 and at

least 5% explanation. According to the factor analysis result, item-7 overlapped in two factors (Factor 2 and Factor

3). Therefore, this item was removed from the scale, and EFA was repeated. When examined to the line chart

presented in Figure 1 regarding the factor eigenvalues of the MSAS scale, it is understood that there are 3 factors

(Factor1: 7.12, Factor2: 1.44, Factor3: 1.04) with an eigenvalue higher than 1.

[6]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

Figure 1.

Line Chart of MSAS Factor

Detailed findings of EFA are presented in Table 2. As a result of the analysis, the factor load values of the items

in the scale vary between .48 and .86. Factor 1 was named as "Compulsive Behavior", Factor 2 as "Loss of Control"

and Factor 3 as "Excessive Screen Time", considering the factors that emerged as a result of EFA. There are 8-items

in the compulsive behavior sub-dimension, explaining 47.47% of the total variance. The loss of control factor has

9.62% explanatory and contains 3-items. There are 4-items in the excessive screen time factor and the contribution

of this factor to the total variance was found to be 6.94%. Accordingly, the total explanatory of the 3-factor

structure is 64.03%.

[7]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

Table 2.

Multiscreen Addiction Scale Factor Load Values

Item Number Factor1: Compulsive Factor2: Loss of Control Factor3: Excessive Screen
Behavior Time
i06 .81
İ08 .81
İ15 .74
i09 .69
i05 .68
i10 .66
i11 .60
i13 .48
i14 .86
i16 .64
i12 .61
i03 .82
i02 .77
i01 .59
i04 .55
Eigenvalues 7.12 1.44 1.04
Variance %47.47 %9.62 %6.94
Explained
Total Variance %64.03
Explained

Descriptive findings obtained regarding the sub-dimensions and items of the MSAS scale are presented in Table

3 and Table 4. According to Table 3, the average of the items varies between 1.57-3.02. On the MSAS scale, item-

8 ("I control the screen of my mobile devices (phone, tablet, PDA, etc.) even though I do not receive any

notification.") has had the highest score average (3.02), and item-14 ("I lie to my relatives (family members, friends,

etc.) about the time I spend on a screen.") has had the lowest average score (1.57).

[8]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

Table 3.

Multiple screen addiction scale items descriptive findings

Skewness Kurtosis
𝑥̅ Sd Min Max
İtem Excessive Screen Time 10.93 4.00 4.00 20.00
My mind is constantly busy with one or more screens
i01 2.87 1.21 1.00 5.00 .11 -.88
of the television, phone, tablet, computer, etc.
I often spend more time with any screen (TV,
i02 2.97 1.13 1.00 5.00 .05 -.80
computer, tablet, phone, etc.) than I planned.
i03 I cannot control the time I spend in front of any screen. 2.47 1.16 1.00 5.00 .44 -.59
I keep without sleep deprived because I control any
i04 2.54 1.26 1.00 5.00 .37 -.95
screen or watch something on that screen.
İtem Compulsive Behavior
i05 I cannot tolerate not having access to any screen. 2.61 1.27 1.00 5.00 .28 -1.00
I check the screens of the television, phone, tablet, etc.
even though I do not have any work or purpose (such
i06 2.86 1.18 1.00 5.00 .05 -.77
as watching a program on TV, writing a message on the
phone).
Even though I don't get any notifications, I check the
i08 3.02 1.32 1.00 5.00 -.05 -1.12
screen of my mobile devices (phone, tablet, PDA, etc.).
i09 I feel the need to constantly interact with any screen. 2.55 1.26 1.00 5.00 .48 -.71
The most common thing I do during the day is
i10 2.70 1.35 1.00 5.00 .16 -1.20
looking at or checking any screen.
I need to turn on the screen of a TV or phone-like
i11 device, even if there is no program I watch or an 2.72 1.31 1.00 5.00 .23 -1.10
activity I need to do.
Staying away from or not being able to access or
screens of one or more my devices (mobile device,
i13 2.50 1.24 1.00 5.00 .29 -1.02
computer or TV etc.) during the day makes me feel
uneasy.
During the time I spend with the screens, I feel that
i15 2.44 2.44 1.00 5.00 .47 -.61
the negative emotions I experience decrease.
İtem Loss of Control
Although I tried to control, limit or reduce the
i12 amount of time I spent with any screen, I was 1.99 1.99 1.00 5.00 .68 -.55
unable to do so.
I lie to my relatives (family members, friends, etc.)
i14 1.57 1.57 1.00 5.00 1.45 1.17
about the time I spend with any screen.
I jeopardize various opportunities for my
education (inability to prepare for the exam, etc.)
i16 2.04 2.04 1.00 5.00 .88 -.11
or career because of the time I spend on any
screen.

According to Table 4, the MSAS average score of the participants is 37.85. Accordingly, it can be said that the

participants' scores indicate a relatively low level of multi-screen addiction. When the situation is examined in
[9]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

terms of scale sub-dimensions, the highest mean score is Excessive Screen Time (M / k = 2.71), while the lowest

average score belongs to the Loss of Control (M / k = 1.87) sub-dimension.

Table 4.

Descriptive Findings of MSAS and its Subscales

Factor k* M M/k Sd Min Max Skewness Kurtosis
Excessive
4 10.84 2.71 3.87 4.00 20.00 .33 -.57
Screen Time
Compulsive
8 21.40 2.68 7.77 8.00 40.00 .17 -.89
Behavior
.68
Loss of Control 3 5.61 1.87 2.42 3.00 12.00 -.56

MSAS 15 37.85 2.52 12.38 15.00 69.00 -.80 .33

*k: number of items

3.2. MSAS Confirmatory Factor Analysis

As a result of EFA, the construct conformity of the 3-factor 15-item MSAS scale was tested with CFA using AMOS

24.0 application. Due to the "normal distribution" of the data, the "maximum likelihood" method was used

(Gürbüz & Şahin, 2016). As a result of the analysis, it was observed that some goodness of fit values were outside

the reference range (𝑥 2 ∕ ⅆ𝑓=2.552, RMSEA=.085, GFI=.882, CFI=.919). Thereupon, the modification suggestions

were examined, and the analysis was repeated by combining the i01-i02 and i06-i08 error variances (See Figure

2). According to the goodness of fit values (𝑥 2 ∕ ⅆ𝑓=2.206, RMSEA= .075, GFI=.901, CFI=.938) obtained as a result

of CFA, the structure of the 3-factor multiple screen dependency scale has an acceptable fit. According to Figure

1, the standardized factor loads of MSAS items vary between .49 and .88.

[10]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

Figure 2.

Measurement Model of Multiscreen Addiction Scale Factor Structure

3.3. Reliability

After the construct validity of the scale was checked with CFA, the internal consistency coefficients of the final

fomat of the multiple screen addiction scale consisting of three dimensions and 15 items and its sub-dimensions

were calculated. Accordingly, the internal consistency coefficient of the MSAS scale was calculated as .92.

[11]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

Reliability coefficients in the subscales were calculated as excessive screen time .83, compulsive behavior .90, and

loss of control .71. The fact that the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient is above .70 in the MSAS scale

and its sub-dimensions (Büyüköztürk, 2018) indicates that the scale and its sub-dimensions have a reliable

structure. After determining the internal consistency coefficients for the scale and its sub-dimensions, item

analyzes were carried out and the obtained findings are presented in Table 5. According to Table 5, corrected

item-total correlation values are above .30. This situation indicates that the substances have good compatibility

with other substances (Büyüköztürk, 2018). In all of the item distinctiveness comparisons presented in Table 5, it

is seen that there was a significant difference in favor of the upper group. Accordingly, it can be said that the

items have high distinctiveness.

Table 5.

Item Analysis

Item Distinctiveness
Corrected Item-
Factor Items (%27 lower group - %27 upper group)
Total Correlation
t p
i01 .75 18.15 .000
Excessive Screen i02 .83 22.22 .000
Time i03 .79 15.64 .000
i04 .73 16.05 .000
i05 .73 14.05 .000
i06 .75 12.76 .000
i08 .85 18.93 .000
Compulsive i09 .88 20.91 .000
Behavior i10 .87 20.25 .000
i11 .83 19.49 .000
i13 .81 15.06 .000
i15 .70 10.30 .000
i12 .57 17.22 .000
Loss of Control i14 .60 11.49 .000
i16 .66 18.59 .000

3.4. Addiction Criterion

The final form of the three-factor structure of the MSAS scale exhibited acceptable reliability and validity. Both

monothetic and polythetic formats were used as addiction criteria. In the monothetic criterion, all criteria related

to multi-screen dependency must be met. In the polythetic criterion, at least half of the addiction indicators must

be met. In this study, the 5-point Likert type was determined as 3 (sometimes) cut-off point on this scale and it

[12]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

was accepted that the item related to this cut-off point and the answers above it was met. Accordingly, responding

to all items within the scope of the monothetic criterion and to at least 8 items within the scope of the polythetic

criterion in MSAS, which consists of 15 items, is defined as an indicator of dependence. Accordingly, it was

determined that 4.63% of the participants within the scope of the monothetic criterion and 50% of the participants

within the framework of the polythetic criterion were multiple screen addicts.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure the multi-screen addiction level of university

students. In this context, an item pool was constituted by examining (1) studies in the literature on multi-screen

addiction and screen addiction, (2) APA DSM-V Internet Gaming Disorder indicators, which are thought to be

closely related to multi-screen addiction, (3) developed scales and researches on issues such as internet addiction,

mobile game addiction, problematic social media use. After various pre-examination and structuring activities, a

16-item scale form was constituted.

EFA was applied to determine the factor structure of the scale, and as a result, it was found that one item

overlapped in more than one factor. This item was removed from the scale form and EFA was repeated, and a

three-factor structure with an eigenvalue greater than 1 was formed. The compulsive behavior sub-dimension

alone explains 48.19% of the total variance. loss of control explains 10.08% of the total variance and 7.21% of

excessive screen time. It has been determined that the structure created as a result of EFA has an acceptable

harmony with the performed CFA. When the internal consistency of the final format of the scale was examined,

it was determined that the Cronbach Alpha value in the overall and sub-dimensions of the scale was between .71

and 92.

Each item in the scale created within the scope of this study was scored from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Responses

of 3 (sometimes) and above to items in the scale were considered to be met in terms of addiction. Monothetic and

polythetic formats were used together to determine the addiction criteria. It has been determined that 4.63% of

the participants according to the monothetic format (participants who gave at least 3-sometimes answers to all 15

items) are multi-screen addicts, while according to the polythetic format 50% of the participants (participants who

answered at least 8 of the 15 items 3-sometimes) are multi-screen addicts. This finding supports the digital-2020

report prepared by the We Are Social (2020), individuals in the 16-65 age range in Turkey daily 7H as 29M Internet

[13]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

use, 3H 4M television and 58M gaming average, including console 11H 31M has been reported that spent time

with several screens. Accordingly, it can be said that a significant portion of the individuals in society carry

various risks in the context of screen addiction and excessive time spent in front of the screens.

4.1. Implications of Research

In this study, a three-dimensional scale with proven validity and reliability was developed to determine the

multiple screen addiction levels of university students. In future studies, screening studies can be conducted to

determine the variables that affect the multiple screen addiction levels of university students. In addition,

qualitative and mixed studies can be organized to examine in more depth the causes of screen addiction and what

the consequences of it may be for the individual and society.

MSAS scale was developed for university students. On the other hand, screen addiction is not only a significant

threat for university students, but it also concerns a significant part of society. Therefore, it is important to conduct

studies to adapt the MSAS scale in different age groups.

In this study, it was determined that 50% of the participants showed multi-screen addiction according to the

polythetic format. In this case, it can be said that a significant number of individuals are connected to screens,

especially mobile device screens, in a long and obsessive manner during the day. In the context of this study, it is

recommended to organize various activities that will raise awareness about the time spent by university students

in front of screens and that screens dominate their lives.

4.2. Limitations

It is generally recommended that EFA and DFA be carried out with different working groups in scale

development studies. In this study, data obtained from a single group in EFA and CFA studies were used, and

this is seen as an important limitation. Since the data collection process came to summer with the Covid-19

outbreak, participation in the study was limited and the data collection process took much longer than expected.

In addition, it is thought that differences in the interaction of individuals with screens during the epidemic period

may cause higher scores for multiple screen addiction. In this case, it is seen as a factor that limits the

generalizability of this study.

Conflict Interest and Author Contributions

All stages of the study were organized and conducted by the author. In addition, the authors declare that they

have no conflict of interest.

[14]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

Ethics

In this study, all scientific ethical rules were followed. For the study, 2020-SBB-0114 ethics committee approval

was obtained from Bartın University Social Sciences and Humanities Ethics Committee.

5. References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®): American
Psychiatric Pub.
Balhara, Y. P. S., Verma, K., & Bhargava, R. (2018). Screen time and screen addiction: Beyond gaming, social media
and pornography-A case report. Asian journal of psychiatry, 35, 77.
Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 8(1), 39-51.
Bölükbaşı-Macit, Z., & Kavafoğlu, S. (2019). Screen: Subject of all Information Technology Addiction. Middle Black
Sea Journal of Health Science, 5(3), 293-301.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada
Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 8(4), 470-483.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, arastırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum
[Data analysis handbook for social sciences statistics, research pattern spss applications and ınterpretation]. (24 ed.).
Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri
[Scientific research methods] (23 ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Cha, S.-S., & Seo, B.-K. (2018). Smartphone use and smartphone addiction in middle school students in Korea:
Prevalence, social networking service, and game use. Health psychology open, 5(1), 2055102918755046.
Chang, F.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Chen, P.-H., Miao, N.-F., Chiang, J.-T., & Chuang, H.-Y. (2018). Computer/mobile
device screen time of children and their eye care behavior: the roles of risk perception and parenting.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(3), 179-186.
Chen, S.-H., Weng, L.-J., Su, Y.-J., Wu, H.-M., & Yang, P.-F. (2003). Development of a Chinese Internet addiction
scale and its psychometric study. Chinese Journal of Psychology.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6 ed.).
Din, N. F. N., & Isam, H. (2019). Teenagers’ Identity Exposure From Screen Addiction In Social Media. Jurnal
Psikologi Malaysia, 33(1).
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage publications.
Griffiths, M. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance
use, 10(4), 191-197.
Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Jun, S., & Choi, E. (2015). Academic stress and Internet addiction from general strain theory framework. Computers
in Human Behavior, 49, 282-287.
Kardaras, N. (2016). Glow kids: How screen addiction is hijacking our kids-and how to break the trance: St. Martin's Press.
Khalili-Mahani, N., Smyrnova, A., & Kakinami, L. (2019). To each stress its own screen: a cross-sectional survey
of the patterns of stress and various screen uses in relation to self-admitted screen addiction. Journal of
medical Internet research, 21(4), e11485.

[15]
Sarıtepeci / Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, 1-17 (2021)

Kwon, M., Kim, D.-J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone addiction scale: development and validation of
a short version for adolescents. PloS one, 8(12), e83558.
Kwon, M., Lee, J.-Y., Won, W.-Y., Park, J.-W., Min, J.-A., Hahn, C., . . . Kim, D.-J. (2013). Development and
validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS). PloS one, 8(2), e56936.
Lin, T. T. C., Kononova, A., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2019). Screen addiction and media multitasking among American
and Taiwanese users. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1-10.
Lin, Y.-H., Chang, L.-R., Lee, Y.-H., Tseng, H.-W., Kuo, T. B., & Chen, S.-H. (2014). Development and validation
of the Smartphone Addiction Inventory (SPAI). PloS one, 9(6), e98312.
Lucena, J. M. S. d., Cheng, L. A., Cavalcante, T. L. M., Silva, V. A. d., & Farias Júnior, J. C. d. (2015). Prevalence of
excessive screen time and associated factors in adolescents. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 33(4), 407-414.
Mozafarian, N., Motlagh, M. E., Heshmat, R., Karimi, S., Mansourian, M., Mohebpour, F., . . . Kelishadi, R. (2017).
Factors associated with screen time in Iranian children and adolescents: The CASPIAN-IV study.
International journal of preventive medicine, 8.
Sarıtepeci, M. Beklenti-Değer Teorisini Temel Alan Başarı Motivasyonu Ölçeğini Uyarlama Çalışması
[Adaptation study of the achievement motivation scale based on value-expectancy theory]. Uluslararası
Eğitim Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 4(1), 28-40. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uebt/issue/37056/396404.
Sarojini, K., Gayathri, R., & Priya, V. V. (2019). Awareness of screen dependency disorder among information
technology professionals–A survey. Drug Invention Today, 12(3).
Seaward, B. L. (2020). Digital Screen Time: The New Social Addiction. Alternative and Complementary Therapies,
26(2), 64-66.
Seçer, İ. (2013). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi: Analiz ve raporlaştırma. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Statista. (2019). Daily online video usage in selected countries 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/319688/daily-online-video-usage/
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5): Pearson Boston, MA.
We Are Social, H. (2020). Digital in 2017: Global overview. Retrieved from https://wearesocial-net.s3-eu-west-
1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/common/reports/digital-2020/digital-2020-global.pdf
Yildiz Durak, H. (2019). Investigation of nomophobia and smartphone addiction predictors among adolescents
in Turkey: Demographic variables and academic performance. The Social Science Journal, 56(4), 492-517.
Yildiz Durak, H. & Saritepeci, M. (2019). Modeling the effect of new media literacy levels and social media usage
status on problematic internet usage behaviours among high school students. Education and Information
Technologies, 24(4), 2205-2223.
Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(3),
237-244.

[16]
Sarıtepeci / Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1-17 (2021)

Appendix

Multiple Screen Addiction Scale

In Turkish (Original form) In English
İtem Aşırı Ekran Süresi Excessive Screen Time
Televizyon, telefon, tablet, bilgisayar vb.
My mind is constantly busy with one or more screens
i01 ekranlarından biri ya da birkaçı ile zihnim sürekli
of the television, phone, tablet, computer, etc.
meşguldür.
Herhangi bir ekranla (TV, bilgisayar, tablet, telefon
I often spend more time with any screen (TV,
i02 vb.) sıklıkla planladığımdan daha fazla zaman
computer, tablet, phone, etc.) than I planned.
geçiririm.
Herhangi bir ekran karşısında geçirdiğim süreyi
i03 I cannot control the time I spend in front of any screen.
kontrol edemem.
Herhangi bir ekranı kontrol ettiğimden ya da o
I keep without sleep deprived because I control any
i04 ekranda bir şeyler izlediğimden dolayı uykusuz
screen or watch something on that screen.
kalırım.
İtem Zorlayıcı Davranış Compulsive Behavior
Hiçbir ekrana erişimimin olmamasına tahammül I cannot tolerate not having access to any screen.
i05
edemem.
Televizyon, telefon, tablet vb. ekranlarını herhangi bir I check the screens of the television, phone, tablet, etc.
uğraşım (TV’de takip ettiğin bir program izleme, even though I do not have any work or purpose (such
i06
telefondan mesaj yazma gibi) olmadığı halde kontrol as watching a program on TV, writing a message on
ederim. the phone).
Herhangi bir bildirim almasam da mobil cihazlarımın Even though I don't get any notifications, I check the
i08
(telefon, tablet, PDA vb.) ekranını kontrol ederim. screen of my mobile devices (phone, tablet, PDA, etc.).
Sürekli herhangi bir ekranla etkileşim halinde olma
i09 I feel the need to constantly interact with any screen.
gereği duyuyorum.
Gün içinde en sık yaptığım şey herhangi bir ekrana The most common thing I do during the day is
i10
bakmak ya da kontrol etmektir. looking at or checking any screen.
Herhangi takip ettiğim program ya da yapmam I need to turn on the screen of a TV or phone-like
i11 gereken bir etkinlik olmasa da TV, telefon benzeri bir device, even if there is no program I watch or an
ekranı açma ihtiyacı duyarım. activity I need to do.
Gün içerisinde mobil cihazım, bilgisayarım ya da TV Staying away from or not being able to access or
ekranlarından bir ya da birkaçına erişimimin screens of one or more my devices (mobile devices,
i13
olmaması ya da uzak kalmam huzursuz hissetmeme computer, or TV etc.) during the day makes me feel
sebep olur. uneasy.
Ekranlarla geçirdiğim zaman süresince yaşadığım During the time I spend with the screens, I feel that
i15
olumsuz duyguların azaldığını hissederim. the negative emotions I experience decrease.
İtem Kontrol Kaybı Loss of Control
Herhangi bir ekranla geçirdiğim süreyi kontrol etme, Although I tried to control, limit, or reduce the
i12 sınırlandırma ya da azaltmak için çaba göstermeme amount of time I spent with any screen, I was unable
rağmen bunu başaramadım. to do so.
Herhangi bir ekranla geçirdiğim süreyle ilgili I lie to my relatives (family members, friends, etc.)
i14
yakınlarıma (aile üyeleri, arkadaş vb.) yalan söylerim. about the time I spend with any screen.
Herhangi bir ekranda geçirdiğim süre nedeniyle I jeopardize various opportunities for my education
İ16 eğitimim (sınava hazırlanamama vb.) veya kariyerim (inability to prepare for the exam, etc.) or career
için çeşitli fırsatları tehlikeye atarım. because of the time I spend on any screen.

[17]

View publication stats