Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2026
Can the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale be adapted across contexts? Evidence from a COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fam Jia Yuin, Männikkö Niko
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS) has served as a foundation for a series of adapted measures designed to assess social media-related behavioral addictions. Despite widespread application of these instruments, a systematic evaluation of their psychometric properties is lacking. This review aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of the BFAS and its adaptations using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.
METHOD: A systematic search was conducted to identify psychometric studies of the BFAS and its adapted versions, including the BFAS-18, Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS), Bergen Mukbang Addiction Scale, Social Media Addiction during COVID-19 Pandemic scale, and Social Networks Addiction Scale-6 Symptoms. Eligible studies were assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the quality of evidence was graded according to the COSMIN-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: A total of 55 studies were included. The BFAS and BSMAS demonstrated strong evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, and hypothesis testing, with high-quality evidence across multiple domains. The BFAS-18 and Bergen Mukbang Addiction Scale received more limited and inconsistent support, while the Social Media Addiction during COVID-19 Pandemic scale and Social Networks Addiction Scale-6 Symptoms remain underexplored with very low-quality evidence. Across all scales, evidence for content validity, reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness was sparse, highlighting important gaps.
CONCLUSIONS: The BFAS and BSMAS currently represent the most robust instruments for assessing Facebook and social media addiction, respectively. However, additional research is required to strengthen evidence for other adaptations, particularly in relation to content validity, measurement error, and responsiveness, as well as to evaluate linguistic and cultural invariance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
METHOD: A systematic search was conducted to identify psychometric studies of the BFAS and its adapted versions, including the BFAS-18, Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS), Bergen Mukbang Addiction Scale, Social Media Addiction during COVID-19 Pandemic scale, and Social Networks Addiction Scale-6 Symptoms. Eligible studies were assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the quality of evidence was graded according to the COSMIN-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: A total of 55 studies were included. The BFAS and BSMAS demonstrated strong evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, and hypothesis testing, with high-quality evidence across multiple domains. The BFAS-18 and Bergen Mukbang Addiction Scale received more limited and inconsistent support, while the Social Media Addiction during COVID-19 Pandemic scale and Social Networks Addiction Scale-6 Symptoms remain underexplored with very low-quality evidence. Across all scales, evidence for content validity, reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness was sparse, highlighting important gaps.
CONCLUSIONS: The BFAS and BSMAS currently represent the most robust instruments for assessing Facebook and social media addiction, respectively. However, additional research is required to strengthen evidence for other adaptations, particularly in relation to content validity, measurement error, and responsiveness, as well as to evaluate linguistic and cultural invariance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).