REVIEW

published: 05 May 2020

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00672

Problematic Mobile Phone

and Smartphone Use Scales:
A Systematic Review
Bethany Harris 1 , Timothy Regan 1 , Jordan Schueler 1 and Sherecce A. Fields 2*
1
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States, 2 Department
of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States

The popularity of smartphones is undeniable in nearly all facets of society. Despite

the many benefits attributed to the technology, concern has grown over the potential
for excessive smartphone use to become problematic in nature. Due to the growing
concerns surrounding the recognized and unrecognized implications of smartphone
use, great efforts have been made through research to evaluate, label and identify
problematic smartphone use mostly through the development and administration of
scales assessing the behavior. This study examines 78 existing validated scales that
have been developed over the past 13 years to measure, identify or characterize
excessive or problematic smartphone use by evaluating their theoretical foundations
Edited by:
Marc Dupuis, and their psychometric properties. Our review determined that, despite an abundance of
Université de Genève, Switzerland self-report scales examining the construct, many published scales lack sufficient internal
Reviewed by: consistency and test-retest reliability. Additionally, there is a lack of research supporting
Emanuele Preti,
University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
the theoretical foundation of many of the scales evaluated. Future research is needed to
Artemisa Rocha Dores, better characterize problematic smartphone use so that assessment tools can be more
Politécnico do Porto, Portugal efficiently developed to evaluate the behavior in order to avoid the excessive publication
*Correspondence: of seemingly redundant assessment tools.
Sherecce A. Fields
safields@tamu.edu Keywords: mobile phone, smartphone, problematic use, addiction, assessment

Specialty section:
This article was submitted to INTRODUCTION
Psychology for Clinical Settings,
a section of the journal Smartphone ownership has become increasingly more prevalent over the past decade since Apple’s
Frontiers in Psychology
first iPhone smartphone device was launched in 2007 (Apple Inc, 2007). In 2018, the Consumer
Received: 24 October 2019 Technology Association (CTA) revealed that smartphones were owned in 87% of United States
Accepted: 19 March 2020
homes and predicted that smartphone ownership could reach household TV ownership rates (96%)
Published: 05 May 2020
within 5 years (Twice Staff, 2018). However, in the fields of psychology and cognition, it is not
Citation: the mere ownership of the technological devices that is causing increased concern. It is, instead,
Harris B, Regan T, Schueler J and
the potential for dysfunction associated with smartphone use that is leading researchers to stress
Fields SA (2020) Problematic Mobile
Phone and Smartphone Use Scales:
the importance of investigating the behavior. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is 3-fold. First,
A Systematic Review. we review literature examining psychological and behavioral dysfunctions related to smartphone
Front. Psychol. 11:672. use as well as probe the potential role problematic smartphone usage may occupy within the realm
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00672 of addiction research. Second, we present an exhaustive review of assessment scales that measure

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

problematic smartphone or mobile phone use including an and success (Alosaimi et al., 2016; Hawi and Samaha, 2016;
overview of reliability (i.e., internal consistency and test-retest Samaha and Hawi, 2016). Findings from these studies suggest the
reliability) and criterion-related validity by each scale. Third, cognitive dysfunction associated with smartphone overuse may
we will provide specific recommendations for moving the field result in real-world consequences for some individuals.
forward including furthering research in order to standardize To reiterate, despite research efforts characterizing associated
conceptualization of the behavior. dysfunction, a standardized conceptualization of problematic
smartphone use has yet to be established in the field.
Associated Dysfunction However, the previously described areas of dysfunction (e.g.,
It is important to note that a standard cut-off point to social, interpersonal, mental health, cognition, and academia)
determine when smartphone use becomes problematic has yet found to be associated with smartphone use support Billieux’s
to be established. Due to insufficient research investigating (2012) conceptualization of problematic smartphone use being
problematic smartphone use in order to effectively and contingent upon negative consequences associated with the use.
consistently characterize it, it is currently unclear whether As such, many assessment tools for problematic use tap into
“problematic use” ought to be defined by use quantity, patterns these types of negative life consequences as they are likely
of use, or by the negative consequences of the use. Billieux (2012) to identify individuals for which excessive smartphone use is
conducted a frequently cited literature review of dysfunctional especially harmful.
mobile phone use and defined the problematic use of mobile
phones as “an inability to regulate one’s use of the mobile phone,
which eventually involves negative consequences in daily life” Is Smartphone Addiction a Real
(pg. 1). Numerous research studies indicating that smartphone Concept?
use is related to various facets of dysfunction support Billieux’s The American Psychiatric Association (APA) broadly defines
(2012) conceptualization of problematic use being contingent addiction as “a complex condition, a brain disease that
upon negative consequences associated with the use. Evidence is manifested by compulsive substance use despite harmful
has accumulated showing strong links between smartphone consequences” (pg. 1; American Psychiatric Association, 2017).
use and social, interpersonal, mental health, cognition and In this definition, the use of substances is a requirement of the
academic dysfunction, suggesting that smartphone use can result condition in that, to be “addicted,” one must have a substance
in significant negative consequences for some individuals (see to which to be addicted. But, what about behavioral addictions?
review, Billieux, 2012). Both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
For example, although smartphones provide unique (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the
opportunities for social interaction, Scott et al. (2016) found International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11; World Health
that problematic attachment to technology such as smartphone Organization [WHO], 2018) have grouped behavioral addictions
devices was associated with lowered social skills, emotional within their respective substance dependence categories. Re-
intelligence and empathy, as well as increased conflict with categorization of addictions was seen in the DSM-5 resulting in
others. Additionally, Laramie (2007) identified social anxiety gambling disorder being recognized as a non-substance-related
and loneliness as being associated with heavy use of and reliance addictive disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
upon mobile phones, suggesting smartphone overuse may result Additionally, Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) is included in the
in interpersonal dysfunction. Relatedly, self-reported subjective DSM-5 as a condition for further study (American Psychiatric
smartphone addiction has been shown to be negatively correlated Association, 2013). Finally, both gambling disorder and gaming
with psychological well-being (Kumcagiz and Gündüz, 2016). disorder are grouped together in the ICD-11 (World Health
Several studies have revealed evidence that low self-esteem Organization [WHO], 2018), suggesting behavioral addictions
(Bianchi and Phillips, 2005; Hong et al., 2012). and depression share some common ground with substance use disorders (SUD).
and anxiety (De-Sola et al., 2017b; Elhai et al., 2017; Matar Despite this conceptual similarity, Billieux et al. (2015) argue
Boumosleh and Jaalouk, 2017) are associated with problematic that, while addictive behaviors like problematic smartphone
smartphone use, especially in populations of adolescents and use is associated with several types of associated dysfunction,
young adults. The results of these studies present rationale for a research in this arena is inconsistent in documenting significant
justified concern surrounding potential negative psychological behavioral and neurobiological similarities and correlates with
consequences of smartphone overuse. more widely recognized substance addictions. For example,
Similarly, concern has grown over the potential negative there are many features of substance addiction that do not
impacts smartphone use might have on users’ behavior appear to be present when considering excessive smartphone
and cognitive abilities. Research has shown that problematic use. Very little research has documented the presence of loss
smartphone use is related to impulsivity (Contractor et al., 2017; of control (i.e., trouble consciously limiting one’s smartphone
De-Sola et al., 2017b; Hadar et al., 2017), impaired attention use), tolerance (i.e., increasing smartphone use to achieve
(Roberts et al., 2015; Hadar et al., 2017), and compromised satisfaction), and withdrawal (i.e., negative symptoms that
inhibitory control (Chen et al., 2016). These associated cognitive occur after smartphone use discontinuation; Billieux et al.,
deficits have spurred researchers to investigate the potential for 2015). Also, dependence symptoms such as tolerance and
dysfunction in academic performance, as well. Smartphone use withdrawal, theoretically based in physiological adaptation to
has been shown to negatively correlate with academic progress increasing amounts of a drug, are often absent in behavioral

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

addictions. In their review for IGD, Kaptsis et al. (2016) Additionally, recently, the city of Honolulu, Hawaii has even
did not find consistent answers to questions inquiring about gone so far as to enact a law making it illegal for pedestrians to
withdrawal symptoms, such as effects on mood (i.e., feeling use their phones when crossing a street or highway (Honolulu,
“irritable,” “dissatisfied,” or “moody” when unable to play a Hawaii, Ordinance 17-39, Bill 6, 2017) due to the significant
game) for IGD. Similarly, physiological and neurobiological increase in pedestrian fatalities in the city partially attributed
adaptations to increasing amounts of smartphone use have yet to smartphone distraction (Ellis, 2017). Thus, more and more
to be documented, suggesting researchers may need to use individuals are using their smartphones in risky and physically
other criterion to define problematic smartphone use. Some hazardous situations. This is conceptually similar to some more
researchers have argued that “borrowing” such criteria from recognized addiction criteria for SUDs in DSM-5.
more recognized addictive behaviors, like substance abuse or
problematic gambling, might not fit for certain problematic or DSM-5 Criteria and Considerations
excessive behaviors (Starcevic, 2016). Thus, although sharing As reviewed, problematic smartphone use shares some
common ground, problematic smartphone use may substantially conceptual similarities with more typically recognized addictions,
differ from substance addiction in regards to loss of control, including excessive use, failure of impulse control, feelings
tolerance, and withdrawal. of dependency, use in risky and/or physically hazardous
Some other criteria for addiction map on better. situations, and potential for negative affect when not using one’s
Aforementioned associated life dysfunction is becoming smartphone. The term “addiction” is typically characterized
increasingly documented, meaning the problematic use of by these criterion, but the question of whether “behavioral
smartphone devices has real-world negative consequences addictions” must contain all of these same criterion to be
for some individuals. Compulsive use has been documented: considered a true “addiction” is still under debate.
Parasuraman et al. (2017) found that over 50% of participants Starcevic (2013) suggested behavioral addictions are
would not quit using their smartphones even though their characterized by salient behaviors which promote craving
daily lifestyles were being negatively affected by their excessive and neglect of other life activity, loss of control, tolerance and
use. This irresistible impulse to use one’s smartphone despite withdrawal manifestations, and negative consequences from
wanting to stop is reminiscent of individuals with SUDs, in overuse. Gambling disorder, considered an impulse control
which the drive to use drugs overrides other executive control disorder in the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association,
processes. Six symptom criteria were even proposed to diagnose 2000), is now characterized and grouped with SUDs in the most
smartphone “addiction” and related functional impairment, recent DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) in a new
which were based on guidelines for SUDs and IGD. Lin et al. category of psychopathology entitled “Substance-Related and
(2016) dropped tolerance from their final criterion, due to low Addictive Disorders.” This transition was the result of a wide
diagnostic accuracy. However, they included withdrawal, as body of research demonstrating clinical, phenomenological,
subjects who used their smartphones excessively enough to be genetic, neurobiological, and other similarities between gambling
considered “addicted” displayed feelings of dysphoria, anxiety, disorder and SUDs (Potenza, 2014). While gambling disorder
and/or irritability after a period without their smartphones. is currently the only representative member of the “Non-
Dependency appears, to some extent, in excess smartphone Substance-Related Disorders” subsection, this transition
users, although again this is based on subjective self-report. was an important shift for the recognition of “behavioral
In a study conducted by Parasuraman et al. (2017) analyzing addictions” more broadly. Many researchers now advocate for
smartphone use behavior, almost 75% of smartphone users the similar recognition of problematic smartphone use (e.g.,
reported feeling dependent upon smartphone devices and 58% Potenza et al., 2018).
of users felt as though they were “unable to withstand” not Support for recognition of problematic smartphone use has
having their smartphone with them. Additionally, over 70% of also been motivated by the growing body of research literature
participants indicated that they use their smartphone longer than on Internet addiction seen since the late 1990s. Kimberly Young
they intended. Similarly, results from a research study released by is considered to be the “founder” of the concept of Internet
The Sun newspaper in March of 2013 indicated that one in ten addiction due to her publication of a case study in 1996 involving
college students say that they are “addicted” to their smartphones a 43-year-old female with no addiction or psychiatric history
(Hope, 2013). Upon surveying 2,000 college students, 85% of the who abused the Internet causing significant impairment (Young,
students endorsed the question about constantly checking their 1996). This led to her development and validation of the Young
smartphones to figure out what time it is and 75% of the students Internet Addiction Scale (Y-Scale; Young, 1998) assessing self-
responded that they sleep with their smartphones lying beside reported preoccupation with the Internet, need to use the
them. These data indicate, when used excessively, smartphones Internet with increasing amounts of time, unsuccessful efforts
can become problematic and users report feeling as though they to stop use, restlessness associated with decreased use, longer
have an addiction to them. than intended use, associated life impairments, concealment of
Laws have even been enacted in many states to combat involvement, and use of the Internet to relieve a dysphoric
problematic use. Phone use while driving a vehicle has become a mood. The scale’s items were derived from the DSM-IV’s criteria
major concern and it has been shown that it is the anticipation of for Pathological Gambling (American Psychiatric Association,
incoming calls, messages and notifications that directly correlates 1995) due to her conceptualization of the behavior as being
with greater in-vehicle phone use (O’Connor et al., 2013, 2017). similar to other impulse-control disorders. It seems likely that

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

the development of this scale and the subsequent research were described in the methods section of a research study as
that has been conducted on Internet addiction have greatly being used to identify or evaluate the behavior. Scales were
influenced the investigation of problematic smartphone use as a excluded from the systematic review when they were used to
similar disorder. measure behavior not specific to smartphone or cellular phone
In light of growing concerns surrounding the known and problematic use.
unknown implications of smartphone use as well as these
recent changes in the conceptualization of non-substance-related Data Extraction
addictions, great efforts have been made through research to Once a measurement scale was identified through the review
identify, label and evaluate problematic smartphone use mostly of a study, a structured process was used to extract data
through the development and administration of scales measuring on the scale (title, abbreviation, and the author(s) of original
and characterizing the behavior. Researchers within the past development/validation study), items (total number, format, and
13 years have set out to develop assessment tools based upon scale range), sample and norms (validation study participant
varying diagnostic criteria for officially recognized disorders count and descriptions), reliability (internal consistency and
and addictions such as SUDs and gambling disorder as well as temporal stability), validity (content domains and criterion-
unofficial criteria associated with Internet addiction. The aim of related validity), and construct being measured. If a scale was
the present review is to examine existing validated scales that have mentioned in a research study as being used to measure the
been developed to measure, identify or characterize problematic behavior, the study used to validate the scale and discuss its
smartphone use by evaluating their theoretical foundations and development was found in the study’s references and used to
their psychometric properties. extract these data.
Format of the scale items was identified and described as either
Likert scale (range of potential responses on a continuum) or
METHODS dichotomous (yes or no response options). Internal consistency
(the degree of the interrelatedness among the items; Mokkink
Literature Collection et al., 2013) was assessed and the Cronbach’s alpha (α) value
All studies (published between January 1994 and May 2019) was recorded for each scale if provided in the validation study.
validating standardized measures of varying forms of problematic Reported temporal stability, or test-retest reliability, measuring
smartphone use were identified by searching two databases the stability of the responses to items over time was assessed
(PsycINFO and MEDLINE Complete) through EBSCOhost. The and were recorded for each scale, as well. Content domains
date range was decided upon after conducting a preemptive were often identified by using the factors listed by the author
literature search utilizing the search terms listed in Appendix A indicated through factor analysis of their scale’s items. The
and concluding that the earliest study was published in 1994 content domains often reflected similar criteria used to assess
(Clifford et al., 1994). For the EBSCOhost literature collection, disorders or conditions claimed by the researchers to be similar in
language was limited to English. Further studies, including nature to the problematic behavior being assessed. The criterion-
those in other languages, were identified by reviewing the related validity (the degree to which the scores of the instrument
bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews. are an adequate reflection of a “gold standard;” Mokkink et al.,
2013) of each scale was identified by assessing the scales and
Search Terms criteria used by the researchers to validate their instruments.
Due to inconsistencies in the field regarding the Finally, the purported construct being measured by each scale
conceptualization of the technology being used and the use was typically identified by evaluating the title assigned to the
of the technology, various terms were used in order to ensure scale by the researchers and their description of the purpose of
that all relevant studies would be identified and reviewed. In developing the scale.
addition to searching for studies identifying problematic use
of smartphones, terms such as “smart phone,” “cellular phone,”
“cell phone,” “mobile device,” and “mobile phone” were used. RESULTS
Additionally, because of the conceptualization of the problematic
use has also been shown to be inconsistently described in Identification of Measurement Scales
research studies, terms such as “dependence,” “dependency,” The process for the identification and selection of the problematic
“overuse,” “nomophobia,” “attachment,” and “compulsive” were smartphone use scales is displayed in the flow diagram (see
used during the literature collection process. Finally, terms Figure 1). The combined search strategy using PsycINFO and
such as “questionnaire,” “scale,” “inventory,” measurement,” MEDLINE Complete databases and the search terms displayed
and “validation” were used to ensure all studies validating in Appendix A yielded 2452 potentially relevant articles.
measurement scales were identified. The full search strategy is From them, 379 duplicate articles were excluded leaving 2073
presented in Appendix A. remaining articles identified as being unique. By screening the
titles of the articles, 1567 articles were excluded leaving 506
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria articles identified as being potentially relevant. Next, through
Scales were selected for inclusion if: (a) their development and an abstract screening process, a single, broad exclusion criteria
validation were investigated in the identified study, or (b) they was utilized to evaluate article relevance and inclusion. Articles

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

scales involved specific analyses of smartphone use and behavior

as opposed to that of more contemporary mobile phone devices.
Scales included in Table 1 are those that were specifically
developed and validated to identify problematic smartphone or
mobile phone use or to diagnose individuals with smartphone
addiction, overuse, dependency, attachment, etc. [e.g.,
Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS; Kwon et al., 2013b);
Smartphone Addiction Inventory (SPAI; Lin et al., 2014)].
Although the construct being claimed to be measured by
each of these individual scales may differ, many of them
are similar in their theoretical foundations and even item
content. For example, while Kwon et al. (2013b) utilized
DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence to develop the item
content for the SAS with the goal of assessing “addiction,”
Merlo et al. (2013) utilized the same criteria to develop the
Problematic Use of Mobile Phones (PUMP) scale. In Table 1,
validated shortened versions of originally validated scales were
included in the review if identified in the literature review.
Table 1 includes the majority of the scales identified in the
review (70 of the 78).
FIGURE 1 | Study flow diagram showing review process on measures of Table 2, on the other hand, contains three scales. This
problematic smartphone use.
table includes scales assessing smartphone use frequency as
opposed to general problematic smartphone use behavior. It is
important to note the differences between these two constructs.
were eliminated if there was no mention of either development As described earlier, smartphone use frequency can be very
and/or validation or utilization of assessment tools examining heterogeneous due to differing motivations and purposes for
use of smartphone or mobile phone devices in their abstract. use (Elhai et al., 2018). Higher frequency of smartphone use
For example, articles were eliminated if researchers utilized may not indicate the presence of problematic smartphone use
smartphone devices to administer assessments of unrelated if, for example, associated life dysfunction is not identified
constructs (e.g., depression, anxiety). This resulted in the removal (Billieux, 2012). Scales included in this table include: the Media
of 40 articles. The remaining 466 articles were identified as being and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale (MTUAS; Rosen
eligible studies requiring further examination in order to identify et al., 2013) which assesses both use of technological devices –
applicable measures. Finally, through an in-depth examination including smartphones – and attitudes surrounding technology
process, 78 total scales were identified as being unique and use (see Table 3); the Smartphone Use Frequency (SUF; Elhai
relevant. These scales are organized by purpose and can be found et al., 2016) assessing use of smartphone devices in areas such
in Table 1 (Problematic Smartphone Use Measurement Scales; as calling, messaging, emailing, etc.; and the Mobile Usage
70 scales), Table 2 (Smartphone Use Frequency Scales; 3 scales), Scale (MUS; Konok et al., 2016) examining differences in use
and Table 3 (Smartphone Use Motivations and Attitudes Scales; 6 of smartphones and traditional mobile phones. These scales
scales), with one scale (MTUAS; Rosen et al., 2013) appearing in were included in the review so as to provide researchers with
both Tables 2, 3 due to overlapping constructs being measured. options for examining problematic smartphone use and/or
smartphone use frequency.
Description of Measurement Scales Finally, additional scales assessing motivations for as well as
Following the development of the first mobile phone use attitudes surrounding use of smartphone devices are included
measurement scales (Toda et al., 2004), mobile phone ownership in Table 3. For example, the MTUAS (Rosen et al., 2013)
began decreasing as smartphones became increasingly more is included in both Tables 2, 3 because, although it assesses
popular. However, during this transition from mobile phone frequency of smartphone and technology usage, it also examines
use to the “smartphone era,” the terms “mobile phone” and attitudes associated with this usage. Additionally, the Process
“smartphone” were used interchangeably across studies and, vs Social Smartphone Usage Scale (PSSU; van Deursen et al.,
often, within studies. Because smartphones have significantly 2015) was included in Table 3 due to its examination of
more components and capabilities than mobile phones and the motivations for use of smartphone devices. Finally, a third
problematic use of the two different forms of technology should example of a scale included in Table 3 is the Mobile Phone
be viewed differently, comparisons of published scales should be Affinity Scale (MPAS; Bock et al., 2016) which evaluates
made in light of the distinctive differences between the two types motivations of smartphone use, including connectedness,
of technology. The scales are arranged based upon the date that productivity, empowerment, etc. It was important to include
they were published within each of the three tables starting with these six scales in Table 3 because their inclusion further
the first developed scale in 2004 to the most recently published exemplifies the robust nature of the research and development
scales in 2019. Thus, it is likely that the more recently developed of measurement scales focusing on smartphone use. The

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Problematic smartphone use measurement scales.

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Cellular Phone CPDQ Toda et al. 20 Likert scale 0–3 Unknown 0.86 N/A 168 female university Dependence Unreported
Dependence (2004) students
Questionnaire (21.7 ± 2.6)
Mobile Phone MPPUS Bianchi and 27 Likert scale 1–10 Tolerance; Escape from other 0.93 N/A 195 adult mobile-phone Problematic MMPI-2 Addiction Potential
Problem Use Scale Phillips problems; Withdrawal; Craving; users use Scale (APS; Weed et al.,
(2005) Negative life consequences (36.1 ± 12.4) 1992)
Self-Perception of STDS Igarashi 15 Likert scale 1–5 Perception of emotional Unreported N/A 248 Japanese Dependence Unreported
Text-Message et al. (2005) reaction; Excessive use; undergraduate students
Dependency Scale Relationship maintenance (Unreported)
Cell Phone Overuse COS Jenaro 23 Likert scale 1–6 Preoccupation; Tolerance; Lack 0.87 N/A 337 Spanish college Excessive DSM-IV criteria for
Scale et al. (2007) of control; Withdrawal; Escape; students (21.6 ± 2.5) use pathological gambling
Deception; Life dysfunction
SMS Problem Use SMS- Rutland 8 Dichotomous Yes/No Relapse; Withdrawal; 0.84 and 0.87 N/A 78 United States college Compulsive Internet addiction
Diagnostic PUDQ et al. (2007) items Interpersonal conflict; Mood students use of SMS
Questionnaire modification; Salience: (20.7 ± unreported)
Preoccupation; Tolerance;
Salience: Compulsivity
6

Problematic Mobile PMPUQ Billieux 30 Likert scale 1–4 Prohibited use; Dangerous use; 0.65–0.85 N/A 339 French-speaking Problematic Existing measurement
Phone Use et al. (2008) (plus 1 Dependence; Financial young adults use scales for problematic
Questionnaire dichotomous) problems (25.8 ± 4.0) phone use
Instant Messaging IMAT Ehrenberg 3 Likert scale 1–7 Salience; Loss of control; 0.69 N/A 200 undergraduate Instant Unreported
Technology et al. (2008) Withdrawal students Messaging
Addiction (19.1 ± 1.8) addiction
Excessive Cellular ECPUS Ha et al. 20 Unreported Control difficulty; Persistent 0.87 N/A 595 Korean high school Excessive Internet addiction
Phone Use Survey (2008) need for connection; Specific students (15.9 ± 0.8) use
communication patterns
Mobile Phone MPAI Leung 17 Likert scale 1–5 Inability to control craving; 0.86 N/A 402 Chinese teenagers Addiction DSM-IV criteria for
Addiction Index (2008) Feeling anxious and lost; (16.9 ± unreported) pathological gambling;
Withdrawal/escape; Internet addiction; Existing
Productivity loss measurement scales of
problematic phone use

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Questionnaire of CERM Beranuy 10 Likert scale 1–4 Conflicts (related to mobile 0.81 N/A 1879 secondary and Addiction DSM-IV criteria for
May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Experiences et al. (2009) phone abuse); Problems (due undergraduate students substance abuse and
Related to the Cell to communicative/emotional (15.5 ± 2.4) pathological gambling
(Cuestionario de use)
Experiencias
Relacionadas con
el Movil)

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Cell-Phone CPAS Koo (2009) 20 Likert scale Withdrawal/tolerance; Life 0.92 N/A 577 Korean adolescents Addiction Unreported
Addiction Scale for dysfunction; (Unreported)
Korean Compulsion/persistence
Adolescents
Cell-Phone KBUTK Pawłowska 33 Likert scale 1–5 Salience; Tolerance; 0.91 N/A Adolescent and Addiction DSM criteria for
Addiction and Withdrawal; Relapse undergraduate students pathological gambling
Assessment Potembska (Unknown)
Questionnaire (2009)
Problem Cellular PCPU-Q Yen et al. 12 Dichotomous Yes/No Tolerance; Withdrawal; 0.85 0.41 - 0.78 10,191 adolescents in Problematic DSM-IV-TR criteria for
Phone Use (2009) items Negative life consequences; Southern Taiwan use substance use dependence
Questionnaire Lack of control (14.6 ± 1.8)
Questionnaire to DENA Labrador 12 Likert scale 0–3 Internet; Video games; N/A N/A 1710 adolescents in Madrid Addiction DSM-IV-TR criteria for
Detect New Encinas Cybercenters; Mobile phone; (14.0 ± 1.4) Substance Abuse disorders
Addictions and TV
(Cuestionario de Villadangos
Deteccion de González
Nuevas Adicciones) (2010)
7

Mobile Phone MPIQ Walsh et al. 8 Likert scale 1–7 Salience (cognitive/behavioral); N/A N/A 946 Australian teenagers Involvement Components model of
Involvement (2010) Conflict and young adults addiction (Griffiths, 2005)
Questionnaire (interpersonal/activities); (18.3 ± 2.6)
Relief/euphoria; Loss of
control/tolerance; Withdrawal;
Relapse and reinstatement
Mobile Addiction MAT Martinotti 10 Likert scale 1–3 Unreported N/A N/A 2794 Italian high school Addiction Gambling addiction;
Test et al. (2011) students Compulsive buying; Internet
(Unreported) addiction; Work addiction;
Exercise addiction
Smartphone SAPS Kim et al. 15 Likert scale 1–4 Disturbance of adaptive 0.81 N/A 795 South Korean Adolescent Internet addiction; Mental
Addiction (2014) functions; Virtual life orientation; adolescents addiction risk health problems
Proneness Scale Withdrawal; Tolerance (Unreported)
Test of Mobile TMD Chóliz 22 Likert scale 0–4 Abstinence; Lack 0.94 N/A 2,486 Spanish adolescents Dependence DSM-IV-TR definition of the
Dependence (2012) Control/Problems; (Unreported) concept of dependence

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Tolerance/Interference
Text Messaging TMG Grellhesl 47 Likert scale 1–7 Immediate access and mobility; 0.86 N/A 513 undergraduate Gratification Uses and Gratification (U
Gratification Scale and Relaxation/Escape; students with SMS and G) Theory (Ruggiero,
Punyanunt- Entertainment; Information (Unreported) 2000); Individual needs
Carter seeking/Coordination; (Flanagin, 2005)
(2012) Socialization and affection;
Status

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Problematic Mobile PMPUS Güzeller 18 Likert scale 1–5 Interference with negative 0.76–0.83 N/A 950 Turkish high school Problematic Existing measurement
Phone Use Scale and effect; Compulsion/persistence; students use scales for problematic
Coñguner Withdrawal/tolerance (16.1 ± 0.9) phone use
(2012)
Mobile Phone MPAS Hong et al. 11 Likert scale 1–6 Time Management and its 0.86 N/A 269 Taiwanese female Addiction Internet addiction
Addiction Scale (2012) Problems; Academic Problems undergraduate students
in School and its Influence; (Unreported)
Reality Substitute
Smartphone SAI Kang and 23 Likert scale 1–5 Preoccupation; Daily-life 0.86 N/A 201 Korean university Addiction Unreported
Addiction Inventory Park (2012) disturbance; Withdrawal; students
Overuse; Cyber-oriented (Unknown)
relationships
Mobile Phone MPATS Xiong et al. 16 Likert scale 1–5 Withdrawal symptoms; 0.83 0.91 641 undergraduate Addiction Internet addiction
Addiction Tendency (2012) Salience; Social Comfort; Mood students
Scale changes (Unknown)
Smartphone SAS-SV Kwon et al. 10 Likert scale 1–6 Daily-life disturbance; Positive 0.91 N/A 540 Korean adolescents Addiction Existing measurement
Addiction Scale - (2013a) anticipation; Withdrawal; (14.5 ± 0.5) scales for problematic
8

Short Version Cyberspace-oriented phone use; Internet

relationship; Overuse; Tolerance addiction
Smartphone SAS Kwon et al. 33 Likert scale 1–6 Daily-life disturbance; Positive 0.97 N/A 197 Korean adults Addiction Internet addiction; DSM-IV
Addiction Scale (2013b) anticipation; Withdrawal; (26.1 ± 6.0) criteria for substance
Cyberspace-oriented dependence and abuse
relationship; Overuse; Tolerance diagnosis
Problematic Use of PUMP Merlo et al. 20 Likert scale 1–5 Tolerance; Withdrawal; Longer 0.94 N/A 244 United States adults Problematic DSM-IV criteria for
Mobile Phones (2013) time than intended; Great deal (29.8 ± 14.1) use substance abuse; Internet
Scale of time spent using; Craving; addiction
Activities given up/reduced;
Use despite
physical/psychological
problems; Failure to fulfill role
obligations; Use in hazardous

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

situations; Use despite
May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

social/interpersonal problems
Self-Rating SQAPMPU Tao et al. 13 Likert scale 1–5 Withdrawal symptoms; 0.87 N/A 2376 Chinese Problematic Existing measurement
Questionnaire for (2013) Craving; Physical and mental undergraduate students use scales for problematic
Adolescent health status (Unreported) phone use
Problematic Mobile
Phone Use

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Smartphone SPAQ Al-Barashdi 39 Unreported Disregard of harmful 0.76 0.66 140 Sultan Qaboos Addiction Existing smartphone
Addiction et al. (2014) consequences; Preoccupation; University undergraduate addiction; Casey’s (2012)
Questionnaire Inability to control craving; students five-factor smartphone
Productivity loss; Feeling (Unreported) addiction profile
anxious and lost
Mobile Phone Use MP-UQ King et al. 29 Dichotomous Yes/No Unreported N/A N/A 50 patients with panic Nomophobia Unreported
Questionnaire (2014) items disorder; 70 control
volunteers
(43 ± unreported)
(35 ± unreported)
Smartphone SPAI Lin et al. 26 Likert scale 1–4 Compulsive behavior; 0.94 0.74 - 0.91 283 Engineering students Addiction Internet addiction
Addiction Inventory (2014) Functional impairment; from Northern Taiwan
Withdrawal; Tolerance (22.9 ± 2.0)
Manolis/Roberts MRCPAS Roberts 4 Likert scale 1–7 Withdrawal; More time than 0.87 N/A 188 Texas undergraduate Addiction Existing measurement
Cell-Phone et al. (2014) expected; Tolerance students scales for problematic
Addiction Scale (21 ± unreported) phone use
Mobile Internet MIUI Shin (2014) 19 Dichotomous Yes/No Excessive use; Neglect of work N/A N/A Unreported Dependence Internet addiction; Existing
9

Usage Index items and social life; Lack of (Unreported) smartphone addiction
self-control; Use of mobile measurement scales
internet for other reasons than
calling
Adapted Cell ACPAT Smetaniuk 20 Likert scale 1–5 Preoccupation (salience); 0.93–0.96 N/A 301 United States college Addiction Internet addiction
Phone Addiction (2014) Excessive use; Neglecting students; 362
Test Work/Social Life; Anticipation; United States working
Lack of control adults
(21 ± unreported)
(32 ± unreported)
Adapted Mobile AMPUH Smetaniuk 10 Dichotomous Yes/No Salience; Mood modification; 0.75 N/A 301 United States college Symptoms DSM-IV criteria for
Phone Use Habits (2014) items Relapse; Withdrawal; students; 362 relative to pathological gambling
Escapism/Dysphoric relief; United States working addictive
Tolerance; Cognitive Distortion; adults behavior

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Resort to antisocial behavior; (21 ± unreported)
May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Conflict/Loss; Desperation (32 ± unreported)

Smartphone SAS-C Su et al. 22 Likert scale 1–5 Withdrawal behavior; Salience 0.44–0.88 0.93 243 Chinese college Addiction Unreported
Addiction Scale for (2014) behavior; Social comfort; students (unreported)
College Students Negative effects; Use of
application; Renewal of
application

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Unnamed Nursing Cho and 18 Likert scale 1–5 Withdrawal; Tolerance; 0.9 N/A 428 nursing clinical Addiction Internet addiction
Smartphone Lee (2015) Interference with daily routines; practicum students
Addiction Scale Positive expectations (Unknown)
Mobile Phone MPIL David et al. 4 Likert scale 1–5 Longer time than intended; Life 0.81 N/A 992 undergraduate Life Unreported
Interference in Life (2015) dysfunction; Loss of control; students interference
Loss of productivity (19.7 ± 1.9)
Mobile Phone MPPUS- Foerster 10 Likert scale 1–10 Tolerance; Escape from other 0.85 0.40 412 Swiss adolescents Problematic Existing measurement
Problem Use 10 et al. (2015) problems; Withdrawal; Craving; (14 ± unreported) use scales for addiction and
Scale - Short Negative life consequences substance abuse
Version
Phubbing Scale PS Karadağ 10 Likert scale 1–5 Communication disturbance; 0.85–0.87 N/A 401 Turkish university Phubbing Focus group interviews
et al. (2015) Phone obsession students
(21.9 ± unreported)
Smartphone SAMI Tossell 15 Likert scale 1–5 Unreported Unreported N/A 34 United States Addiction Internet addiction; Existing
Addiction et al. (2015) undergraduate students measurement scales for
Measurement (Unreported) problematic phone use
Instrument
Problematic PSUS-R Valderrama 19 Likert scale 1–6 Salience; Conflict; Tolerance; 0.94 N/A 182 United States adults Problematic Components model of
10

Smartphone Use (2014) Withdrawal; Relapse (Unreported) use addiction (Griffiths, 2005)
Scale - Revised
Nomophobia NMP-Q Yildirim and 20 Likert scale 1–7 Not being able to 0.95 N/A 301 United States Nomophobia Existing measurement
Questionnaire Correia communicate; Losing college students scale for problematic
(2015) connectedness; Unable to (20 ± unreported) phone use
access information; Giving up
convenience
Untitled Aljomaa 80 Likert scale 1–5 Overuse of smartphones; 0.97 0.89–0.92 416 Saudi Arabian Addiction DSM-IV definition of
Smartphone et al. (2016) Technological dimensions; university students addiction; Existing
Addiction Scale Psychological-social dimension; (Unreported) measurement scales for
Preoccupation with problematic phone use
smartphones; Health
dimensions
Test of Mobile TMDbrief Chóliz et al. 12 Likert scale 0–4 Abstinence; Abuse/interference 0.88 N/A 2028 young adults from Dependence Existing measurement
Dependence - Brief (2016) with activities; Tolerance; Lack Southern and Northwest scale for problematic

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

of control Europe, South America, phone use

India, Pakistan and
Mesoamerica
(Unreported)
Brief Smartphone BSAS Csibi et al. 6 Likert scale 1–6 Salience; Mood modification; 0.82 N/A 441 Hungarian adolescents Addiction Existing measurement
Addiction Scale (2016) Tolerance; Withdrawal; Conflict; (13.4 ± 2.2) scale for problematic phone
Relapse use; Components model of
addiction (Griffiths, 2005)

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Mobile Addiction MAS Fidan 21 Unreported Salience; Tolerance; 0.91 N/A 284 participants from Addiction Components model of
Scale (2016) Withdrawal; Relapse; Conflict Turkey addiction (Griffiths, 2005);
(Unreported) Mobile Internet tendencies
Mobile Attachment MAS Konok 10 Likert scale 1–5 Phone proximity seeking; Need 0.77 N/A 142 Hungarian young Attachment- Adult Attachment Scale
Scale et al. (2016) for contact; Preference for adults like features (AAS; Collins and Read,
mobile communication (Unreported) of usage 1990)
Problematic Mobile PMPUS Pamuk and 26 Likert scale 1–5 Deprivation; Adverse 0.92 (EFA); 0.85 725 college students in Problematic DSM-5 criteria for SUD and
Phone Use Scale Atli (2016) outcomes; Control problem; 0.93 (CFA) Turkey use IGD; Existing measurement
Interaction avoidance (20.7 ± 0.1) scale for problematic phone
use
Partner Phubbing PPS Roberts 9 Likert scale 1–5 Unreported 0.92 N/A 308 United States adults Partner Personal involvement
(Pphubbing) Scale and David (unreported) phubbing measure; Relationship
(2016) satisfaction
Estonian E-SAPS Rozgonjuk 18 Likert scale 1–6 Daily-life disturbance; 0.87 N/A 767 Estonian adults Addiction Internet addiction; Existing
Smartphone 18 et al. (2016) Cyberspace-oriented (26.1 ± 6.7) proneness smartphone addiction
Addiction relationships; Positive measurement scales
11

Proneness Scale anticipation; Withdrawal and

Overuse; Importance; Physical
symptoms
Young Adult YAPS Trub and 20 Likert scale 1–7 Refuge (safe with the 0.94 N/A 955 United States young Attachment Existing measurement
Attachment to Barbot phone/uncomfortable upon adults scale for problematic phone
Phone Scale (2016) separation); Burden (relief upon (23.6 ± 2.9) use; Attachment
separation) anxiety/avoidance
Selfitis Behavior SBS Balakrishnan 20 Likert scale 1–5 Environmental enhancement; 0.876 N/A 400 Indian university Problematic- Focus group interview
Scale and Social competition; Attention students self-taking statements concerning
Griffiths seeking; Mood modification; (20.9 ± 4.3) behavior selfitis motivations
(2017) Self-confidence; Subjective
conformity
Smartphone SABAS Csibi et al. 6 Likert scale 1–6 Tolerance; Withdrawal; 0.81 N/A 240 English-speaking Addiction Sensation seeking and
Application-Based (2017) Salience; Conflict; Loss of volunteers deprivation sensation;
Addiction Scale control; Mood modification (25.4 ± unreported) Nomophobia; Existing

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

measurement scales for

problematic phone use
Mobile Phone MPACS De-Sola 8 Likert scale 1–10 Urgency to use mobile phone; 0.92 N/A 1126 Spanish adult mobile Craving Existing measurement
Addiction Craving et al. Anxiety due to unavailability phone users scales for problematic
Scale (2017a) (32.8 ± 11.7) phone use; State anxiety
and impulsivity

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Adolescent APSS Hunter 21 Likert scale 1–6 Mood management; Behavioral 0.87–0.91 N/A 1967 Australian Preoccupation Existing measurement
Preoccupation with et al. (2017) preoccupation adolescents (unreported) scales for problematic
Screens Scale technology use
Problematic PSUS-R Hussain 9 Likert scale 1–5 Preoccupation; Withdrawal; 0.86 N/A 640 adult smartphone Problematic DSM-5 diagnostic criteria
Smartphone Use et al. (2017) Tolerance; Lack of control; Loss users use for IGD
Scale of interest in other activities; (24.9 ± 8.5)
Overuse despite problems;
Deception; Escape/Relieve
mood; Social dysfunction
Smartphone SOS-Q Lee et al. 28 Likert scale 1–4 Preoccupation; Loss of control; 0.95 0.70 158 subjects from Overuse Existing measurement
Overuse Screening (2017) Craving; Insight; Overuse; community centers for scale for problematic phone
Questionnaire Neglect of other areas Internet addiction use; Internet addiction
(22.1 ± 7.6)
Smartphone SPAI-SF Lin et al. 10 Likert scale 1–4 Compulsive behavior; functional 0.84 N/A 268 Engineering students Addiction Existing measurement
Addiction (2017) impairment; Withdrawal; from Northern Taiwan scales for problematic
12

Inventory - Short Tolerance (20.9 ± 1.6) phone use; Proposed

Form diagnostic criteria for
smartphone addiction
Mobile Phone MPAS Basu et al. 20 Likert scale 1–6 Intense desire; Impaired 0.90 N/A 388 Indian medical Addiction Existing measurement
Addiction Scale (2018) control; Withdrawal; Tolerance; students (20.5 ± 1.8) scales for problematic use
Decreased interest in alternate
pleasures; Harmful use
Smartphone SOCS Ding et al. 24 Likert scale 1–5 Social network app overuse 0.85 0.77–0.88 849 Shanghai university Overuse Internet addiction;
Overuse (2018) (S-scale); Recreational app students Symptoms of psychological
Classification Scale overuse (R-scale); Information (Unreported) dependency
overload (I-scale)
Smartphone SWS Eide et al. 15 Likert scale 1–5 Depression-anxiety; Craving; 0.88–0.92 N/A Withdrawal Cigarette Withdrawal Scale
Withdrawal Scale (2018) Irritability-impatience; Difficulty 127 European adults (CWS; Etter, 2005)
concentration (25.0 ± 4.5)
Problematic Mobile PMPUQ-R Kuss et al. 17 Likert scale 1–4 Dependence; Prohibited use; 0.86 N/A 512 United Kingdom Problematic Existing measurement

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Phone Use (2018) Dangerous use young adult smartphone use scales for problematic
Questionnaire - users phone use;
Revised (25.5 ± unreported) Psychopathology
(depression, anxiety, stress,
ADHD)

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Problematic Mobile PMPUQ- Lopez- 15 Likert scale 1–4 Dependence; Prohibited use; 0.69–0.88 N/A 3038 adults from 14 Problematic Existing measurement
Phone Use SV Fernandez Dependence different countries use scales for problematic use
Questionnaire – et al. (2018) (26.5 ± 9.4)
Short Version
Questionnaire to QANIP Olivencia- 11 Unreported Mobile Phone Abuse; Loss of 0.80 N/A 968 Spanish adults Nomophobia Unreported
Assess Carrion Control; Negative (23.2 ± 7.2)
Nomophobia et al. Consequences; Sleep
(2018a) Interference
Cuestionario de ATeMo Olivencia- 25 Likert scale 0–4 Craving; Loss of Control; 0.91 N/A 856 Spanish university Abuse Gambling disorder;
Abuso del Telefono Carrion Negative Life Consequences; students Substance abuse
Movil et al. Withdrawal Syndrome (21.1 ± 3.1) disorders; Existing
(2018b) measurement scales for
problematic phone and
Internet use
13

MULTICAGE-TIC Pedrero- 20 Dichotomous Yes/No Problematic use of: Internet, 0.72–0.93 N/A 1276 Spanish-speaking Problematic MULTICAGE CAD-4
Pérez et al. video games, mobile phones, adults (unreported) use screener for compulsive
(2018) instant messaging, social behaviors (Pedrero-Pérez
networks et al., 2007)
Problematic Media PMUM Domoff 27 Likert scale 1–5 Unsuccessful control; Loss of 0.97 N/A 291 mothers of children Parent-report DSM-5 criteria for IGD
Use Measure et al. (2019) interest; Preoccupation; aged 4–11 of adolescent
Psychosocial consequences; (Unreported) problematic
Serious problems due to use; media use
Withdrawal; Tolerance;
Deception; Escape/Relieve
mood
Problematic Media PMUM- Domoff 9 Likert scale 1–5 Unsuccessful control; Loss of 0.93 N/A 632 mothers of children Parent-report DSM-5 criteria for IGD
Use Measure - SF et al. (2019) interest; Preoccupation; aged 4–11 of adolescent
Short Form Psychosocial consequences; (40.4 ± 10.0) problematic

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Serious problems due to use; media use
May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Withdrawal; Tolerance;
Deception; Escape/Relieve
mood

(Continued)
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 1 | Continued

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Parental PSUMS Hsieh et al. 17 Likert scale 0–6 Reactive management; 0.93–0.95 N/A 237 parents of adolescents Parent’s Existing measurement
Smartphone Use (2019) Proactive management; with ADHD (Parents: self-efficacy scale for problematic use
Management Scale Monitoring 43.5 ± 5.9) (Adolescents:
13.7 ± 1.8)
Smartphone SIS Pancani 26 Likert scale 1–5 Loss of control; Nomophobia; 0.74–0.91 (ω) N/A 601 Italian adults Impacts of Existing measurement
Impact Scale et al. (2019) Smartphone-mediated (29.1 ± 9.3) use scale for problematic use
communication; Emotion
regulation; Support to romantic
relationships; Task support;
Awareness of negative impact
14

TABLE 2 | Smartphone use frequency scales.

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Media and MTUAS Rosen et al. 60 Likert scale 1–5 Smartphone usage; Social 0.61–0.97 N/A 942 United States adults Involvement Internet addiction;
Technology Usage (2013) media usage; Internet (30.0 ± 12.5) Technology-related anxiety;
and Attitudes Scale searching; E-mailing; Media Daily media usage hours
sharing; Text messaging; Video
gaming; Online friendships;
Facebook friendships; Phone
calling; Watching TV;
Positive/Negative attitudes;

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Tech anxiety/dependence;
May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Attitudes toward task-switching

Smartphone Use SUF Elhai et al. 11 Likert scale 1–6 Calling; Messaging; Email; 0.86 N/A 308 North American adults Usage Unreported
Frequency (2016) Social networking; Internet; (33.2 ± 10.2)
Gaming; Music/podcast; Taking
pictures/videos; Watching
videos; Reading; Navigation
Mobile Usage Scale MUS Konok 6 Likert scale 1–5 Smart mobile phone use; 0.71 N/A 142 Hungarian young Mobile usage Mobile phone use
et al. (2016) Traditional mobile phone use adults types
(Unreported)
Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

inclusion of each of these three domains makes this review a can be functional for some (e.g., productive smartphone use for
useful tool for researchers studying smartphone use behavior – purposes of work or school) and dysfunctional for others (e.g.,
problematic or otherwise – as well as associated benefits excessive gaming and social media use).
and dysfunction. Additionally, a significant number of scales described in
Tables 1–3 relied upon existing measurement scales for
Psychometric Characteristics problematic phone use in order to establish concurrent validity
Elements of criterion-related validity, content domains, internal for the scale they were developing. This is due to the recognized
consistency, temporal stability, and purported construct were issue of currently not having a gold standard for criterion-
listed or briefly described for each of the scales in Tables 1–3. related validity for problematic phone use or addiction. However,
Because of this, these tables can be used to compare the individual this is concerning considering the existing assessments used to
scales. Additionally, in the following analysis, the psychometric validate the new scale likely also used problematic criteria to
properties and conceptual foundations of the scales included establish criterion-related validity. For example, when developing
in this review will be further dissected. This analysis will help the Smartphone Impact Scale (SIS), Pancani et al. (2019) included
researchers and practitioners alike to consider the psychometric the widely used Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS; Kwon et al.,
properties and theoretical foundations of potential assessment 2013b) in their study to validate the SIS with an Italian adult
tools before deciding which scale should be utilized in their sample. This could be problematic for two reasons. Firstly, to our
research or practice. knowledge, the SAS has yet to be validated for use with Italian
The term “addiction” was used frequently when naming many adults as it was developed using a population of Korean adults.
of the problematic smartphone use scales. This is due to the Secondly, to our knowledge, the temporal stability of the SAS has
choice of framework and criterion-related validity used when yet to be investigated.
developing and validating the scales. Many scale developers Selection of content domains by the researchers in their
used either the DSM-IV or DSM-5 criteria for substance use to validation studies stemmed from their conceptual foundation for
examine criterion-related validity during development. Others the scale’s development and their criterion-related validity. For
chose to use Griffiths’ (2005) components descriptive model example, regarding the scales in Table 1, DSM-IV pathological
of addiction, which includes the following core components: gambling criteria or DSM-5 gambling disorder criteria were
salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict and used to establish criterion-related validity for seven of the
relapse. Similarly, Internet addiction was frequently used to scales (COS, MPAI, CERM, KBUTK, MAT, AMPUH, and
establish criterion-related validity. Before the release of the ATeMo). Therefore, these scales’ content domains were shown
first smartphone, problematic Internet use was being observed, to reflect the diagnostic criteria associated with problematic
identified, and subsequently labeled as Internet addiction. gambling disorder. The DSM-5 indicates that, to be diagnosed
Addiction scales were quickly developed to assist identifying with gambling disorder, an individual must exhibit four or
this behavior such as Young’s Internet Addiction Test (IAT more of the following symptoms: tolerance; withdrawal; lack of
or Y-Scale; Young, 1998). Once smartphones were developed control; preoccupation; escape from problems; “chasing” losses;
and made available to the public, problematic smartphone use deception; and associated life dysfunction in areas such as
similarly became a concern. Many researchers utilized various relationships, job, education, or finances (American Psychiatric
Internet addiction scales to validate their scales (e.g., SMS- Association, 2013). Excluding “chasing” losses, these factors
PUDQ; ECPUS; MPAI; SAPS). were shown to be consistently reflected across those seven
One of the final ways that scale developers established scales in terms of their established content domains. DSM-
criterion-related validity was by utilizing quantified smartphone IV, DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5 criteria for SUDs were frequently
use as a criterion to determine whether the scales could be used used to validate these problematic smartphone use scales, and
to identify smartphone addiction. However, most of these scale their diagnostic criteria were similarly, reflected in the content
development processes involved self-reported and self-estimated domains established in the validation studies (e.g., CERM, PCPU-
smartphone use. Because they were unable to utilize concrete and Q, and SAS).
exact documentation of participants’ smartphone use time, they Internal consistency is the degree of interrelatedness among
relied upon estimation which can be unreliable (Andrews et al., scale items (Mokkink et al., 2013). This measure of reliability was
2015) and, therefore, should not be considered to be a practical reported for most of the scales in the form of a Cronbach’s α
or accurate means of validating a scale. value. However, despite its importance in scale development, an
Even if accurate data were being obtained from participants internal consistency value was not reported for seven of the scales
concerning time spent using their phones, there is no established in their validation studies (STDS, DENA, MPIQ, MAT, MP-UQ,
cut-off point that can be used to validate accuracy of a scale in MIUI, and SAMI). The Cronbach’s α values that were reported
indicating dependency, problematic use or addiction based upon ranged from 0.53 (MPUS) to 0.97 (PMUM, MTUAS, and SAS).
extensiveness of use alone since it has not been determined at Although there is inconsistency in the field regarding at what
what point phone use becomes problematic. It is likely that a cut- point Cronbach’s α values should be considered to be adequate
off point for quantitative smartphone use may not be feasible. or acceptable, acceptable values of alpha have been reported to
Elhai et al. (2018) explains that smartphone use frequency can range from 0.70 to 0.95 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Bland and
be very heterogeneous due to differing motivations and purposes Altman, 1997; DeVellis, 2016). Using the lowest value reported
for use. They describe how a high frequency of smartphone use as being acceptable or adequate as a cutoff, four of the scales

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

Harris et al.
TABLE 3 | Smartphone use motivations and attitudes scales.

Title Abbrev. Author(s) Items Item format Item Content domains Internal Temporal Sample/Norms Purported Criterion-Related validity
scale consistency stability (Age: M, SD) construct
(Cronbach’s α) (Test-
Retest)

Attitudes Toward ATCPQ Aoki and 40 Likert scale 1–7 Necessity in Modern Times; 0.81 N/A 137 undergraduate Attitudes Unreported
Cell Phones Downes Cost Efficiency; Safety/Security; students toward
Questionnaire (2003) Dependency; Negatives; (Unreported) phones
Functionality
Mobile Phone MPUS Hooper and 30 Likert scale 1–5 Behaviors: Habitual; Addictive; 0.53–0.88 N/A 184 undergraduate Motivations Existing measurement scale
Usage Scale Zhou Mandatory; Voluntary; students of usage for problematic phone use
(2007) Dependent; Compulsive (Unreported)
Media and MTUAS Rosen et al. 60 Likert scale 1–5 Smartphone usage; Social 0.61–0.97 N/A 942 United States adults Involvement Internet addiction;
Technology Usage (2013) media usage; Internet (30.0 ± 12.5) Technology-related anxiety;
and Attitudes Scale searching; E-mailing; Media Daily media usage hours
sharing; Text messaging; Video
gaming; Online friendships;
16

Facebook friendships; Phone

calling; Watching TV;
Positive/Negative attitudes;
Tech anxiety/dependence;
Attitudes toward task-switching
Gravitating Toward GoToMP Olufadi 38 Likert scale 1–4 Boredom; Social connection; 0.94 N/A 432 Nigerian Urge to use Theory of Consumption
Mobile Phone Scale (2015) Class-related use; Emergency; undergraduate students during Values (TCV; Sheth et al.,
Addiction; Perceived behavioral (21.1 ± 2.1) lectures 1991)
control
Process vs Social PSSU van 12 Likert scale 1–5 Process usage motivations; 0.89 N/A 386 Dutch adolescents and Motivations Perceived gratification
Smartphone Usage Deursen Social usage motivations adults (35.2 ± 14.7) items (Chua et al., 2012);
Scale et al. (2015) Uses and Gratification (U
and G) Theory (Ruggiero,
2000)
Mobile Phone MPAS Bock et al. 24 Likert scale 1–5 Connectedness; Productivity; 0.83 N/A 1058 North American Affinity Anxiety and impulsiveness;

Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Affinity Scale (2016) Empowerment; Anxious adults Psychological resilience

attachment; Addiction; (32.5 ± 10.3)
Continuous Use
Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

identified in this review (PMPUQ, IMAT, MPUS, and MTUAS) scales, many researchers feel as though it could be time to
would not meet that standard. start assessing smartphone use with an addictive framework
Although internal consistency is important in scale in mind, arguably with the exception of “tolerance” symptoms
development, most of the scale developers failed to account (Lin et al., 2016, 2017). This may in part be due to a
for temporal stability in guaranteeing reliability. Upon analyzing belief that problematic smartphone use, as well as potentially
the psychometric properties of the various scales, it was other problematic behaviors, should be similarly characterized
discovered that only in the scale development of ten scales and defined as diagnosable behavioral or non-substance-
were test-retest reliability coefficients provided to indicate that related addictions. The majority of reviewed scales reflect this
the scales have temporal stability. This is a cause for concern viewpoint. The content domain of most scales (see Table 1)
because even some of the most frequently used scales have failed are related to dependence-related concepts including craving,
to ensure temporal stability in their development (e.g., SAS, tolerance, withdrawal, excessive time spent using, and negative
NMP-Q, and SABAS). life consequences.
Other scales have moved away from this content domain
in their development and have attempted to measure more
DISCUSSION specific and different aspects of problematic smartphone use.
For example, The Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire
This review is the first to identify and report the method (Walsh et al., 2010) and the Media and Technology Usage
of development for all problematic smartphone use scales as and Attitudes Scale (Rosen et al., 2013) examine smartphone
well as those developed to assess smartphone use frequency, use involvement through items assessing euphoria, salience,
motivations, and attitudes. After conducting a systematic and overall usage. This perhaps reflects the rationale that
search and identifying all relevant measures, we analyzed the smartphones may be especially cognitively and behaviorally
psychometric properties and criterion-related validity of each salient to some, resulting in more usage, but without this
scale. However, despite identifying 78 validated scales, we usage necessarily being pathological, uncontrollable, or addictive
were not able to fully determine the most efficient scales for in nature. Such scales perhaps measure the construct of
measuring problematic phone usage due to several issues: (1) “liking,” or the pleasurable impact of habitual smartphone
most of the scales established criterion validity using DSM- use, compared to other scales measuring the construct of
IV or DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder or substance-use “wanting,” or the compulsive motivation to engage in smartphone
disorders, even though there is still considerable controversy use resulting in negative life consequences. This reflects an
over whether problematic smartphone use should be considered important distinction considering the behavioral addiction
an “addiction”; (2) test-retest reliability coefficients were not framework: more and more in today’s society, smartphones
reported in the development articles for 68 of the 78 scales, are linked with several forms of reward and social value.
and both internal consistency and test-retest reliability were It makes sense people would “like” smartphones, feel they
not available for seven of the scales, which causes concern are important, and use them many times a day. This does
for future analyses that attempt to identify the most efficient not necessarily reflect addiction to them, despite individual’s
scale(s); (3) the gold-standard criteria and cut-off scores for tendency to self-report this. Some of the reviewed scales
problematic smartphone use has yet to be established; in perhaps are better conceptualized as a measuring maladaptive
other words, these scales cannot accurately be compared and smartphone use, rather than addictive use, as endorsements such
contrasted since there is no validated, gold-standard criteria behaviors perhaps do not rise to the severity levels of addiction
to which they can strive to incorporate. Therefore, we will (Panova and Carbonell, 2018).
primarily discuss practical ideas and recommendations for In a similar vein, some scales appear to measure the degree
future research. to which individuals report salient emotional connections to
their smartphone. The Young Adult Attachment to Phone Scale
Scale Content (Trub and Barbot, 2016) and the Adolescent Preoccupations
The addition of gambling disorder to the substance-related with Screens Scale (Hunter et al., 2017) share item content
and addictive disorders section of the DSM-5 as a non- related to feelings of safety with and feelings of anxiety when
substance-related addictive disorder has subsequently opened without one’s phone. Such scales measure attachment styles,
the door for other behaviors to be researched, evaluated, and in that an individual’s mood state can shift depending on
identified through developed and validated scales. Another the smartphone device’s proximity. The relative convenience
example of this would be the behavioral condition known as of smartphone functions in daily life can mean that feelings
internet gaming disorder (IGD). While this area of research of irritation or concern are likely to present when one does
warrants further study according to the DSM-5 (American not have immediate access to it. Relatedly, scales like the
Psychiatric Association, 2013), the proposed criteria for IGD Mobile Attachment Scale (Konok et al., 2016) and the Mobile
as a behavioral addiction involving the problematic use of Phone Affinity Scale (Bock et al., 2016) have items which
video game technology closely resembles the criteria for SUD measure a preference for mobile communication, resulting in
and are very similar to how researchers are conceptualizing strong preferences for having one’s smartphone device instantly
problematic smartphone use (Lin et al., 2016). Further, based accessible. This emotional attachment resulting in dysphoria
on the development methods of the majority of the reviewed can mimic addiction withdrawal symptoms in this way.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Problematic smartphone use often co-occurs with depression identified before using officially recognized addictive disorders to
and anxiety as a means of experiential avoidance (Elhai establish criterion-related validity.
et al., 2017). But, these scales and criteria may simply be
reflecting a strong “liking” for the ease of communication Limitations of Reviewed Scales
to others via calling/texting, can result in different emotional In addition, there were many fundamental limitations to the
reactions depending on whether the device is accessible or development and intended uses of the reviewed scales. For
not. Future research should examine how endorsement of instance, all of the reviewed scales that assessed phone use
particular problematic smartphone use behaviors perhaps better were self-report, and, therefore, cannot reliably measure actual
explained by general psychopathology like depression and phone usage. This is a limitation in this particular field of
anxiety, rather than addiction. research that needs to be addressed. Further, when developing
Numerous researchers have published scales purportedly these new scales, many of the researchers’ hypotheses for
assessing “smartphone addiction” or “phone addiction.” creating these scales were that problematic phone use would
However, some researchers feel as though we do not currently correlate not with actual use, but, instead, with associated
have the necessary evidence supported by research to accurately personality traits including self-esteem and impulsivity (e.g.,
conceptualize smartphone use as having the capability of Bianchi and Phillips, 2005; Billieux et al., 2008; Leung, 2008).
developing into an addictive behavior. Griffiths (2013) Future research may aim to develop or modify an existing
argues that “we are not yet in a position to confirm the scale or consider running an experimental study in which
existence of a serious and persistent psychopathological they actively measure phone usage among individuals that
addictive disorder related to mobile phone addiction on includes a method to separate “normal” and “problematic”
the basis of population survey data alone” (p. 77). Perhaps use. Interestingly, global researchers (Monge Roffarello and
this is the reason that a standard cut-off point to determine De Russis, 2019), as well as Google (2019), have recently
when smartphone use becomes problematic has yet to be created smartphone applications (e.g., “Socialize” and “Digital
established. Similarly, the Internet addiction framework was Wellbeing”) that can track phone usage among other features
frequently used by the developers of several of the reviewed and even provide an intervention for excessive use (e.g.,
problematic smartphone use scales to establish criterion- allowing users to set limits for amount of time allotted
related validity. However, Internet addiction is not currently for specific application usage per week or per day). These
recognized by the DSM-5 as a non-substance related addictive applications are excellent examples for researchers to consider
disorder due to the lack of research indicating similarity using as an alternative to self-report scales in measuring
in manifestation or dysfunction with addictive disorders smartphone usage.
recognized by the DSM-5. In a research setting, these applications would provide
Additionally, there is a lack of sufficient research investigating investigators with the opportunity to gather objective data
how to effectively characterize problematic smartphone use, on smartphone use from smartphone-using participants
and it is currently unclear whether “problematic” ought to following the instruction of having the application downloaded
be defined by the quantity of use, patterns of use, or by the on participants’ phones for a specific period of time. Future
negative consequences or marked distress as a result of usage. research ought to also investigate the effectiveness of
If researchers intend to define problematic smartphone use as these applications as intervention tools for problematic
an “addiction” similar to a substance-use disorder, all three of smartphone use. However, to reiterate, due to the heterogeneity
those criteria, among others (e.g., “recurrent use in situations in of smartphone use frequency (i.e., functional versus
which it is physically hazardous” or “continued use despite having dysfunctional) described by Elhai et al. (2018), researchers
persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused should recognize that objective smartphone use data collected
by or exacerbated by use”), would need to be present in order through use of these applications or other methods is a
to diagnose dysfunctional or problematic smartphone use as an measure of smartphone use frequency, not necessarily
addiction (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This should problematic smartphone use. Additionally, necessary steps
be reflected in the self-report scales researchers are developing, ought to be taken to safeguard ethical considerations and
testing, and validating. minimize risks associated with instructing participants
Panova and Carbonell (2018) support Griffiths’ (2013) to download applications on their smartphone devices
previously described argument in that they similarly suggest with the inherent function of tracking their activity (e.g.,
moving away from the addiction framework when considering protection of privacy).
problematic behaviors such as the problematic use of smartphone Secondly, the majority of the development articles for the
or other technological devices. They reference a pattern of weak reviewed scales reported only internal consistency as a means
study designs in the smartphone literature, such as full reliance on of establishing reliability for their scale. Internal consistency is
correlational studies, or a lack of longitudinal and experimental widely used in scale development, and the coefficient is based off
studies that examine associated cognitive, psychological or of the interrelatedness of the items within the scale. However,
behavior dysfunction. They also strongly advocate for the use this does not mean that the items as a whole are necessarily
of terms such as “problematic use” over “addiction” when related to the intended construct or possess established validity.
describing these behaviors. They noted that it is imperative that a If we were going to rank scales as the most reliable based
research-supported criterion for problematic smartphone use be solely off of their internal consistency coefficients, the PMUM,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

MTUAS, and SAS (α = 0.97) would have been at the top of confined for research purposes only. This further indicates
the list. However, researchers such as Thompson (2003) have a need for additional research on the conceptualization and
called the use of internal consistency as the sole measure of demonstrated severity of problematic smartphone use, and
reliability “sloppy” and not representative of the quality of whether it should be given consideration for a place in the
the scale. While a higher Cronbach’s alpha may demonstrate next edition of the DSM or ICD. Until then, we are unable
the consistency of the items in the measure, the items may to recommend the use of a specific scale or specific scales
not be accurately capturing problematic phone usage. If there to assess this behavior due to a lack of sufficient research
had been other reliability and validity statistics offered in the on the construct.
development articles of the reviewed scales, perhaps specific
scales could have been recommended with confidence in this Limitations of the Current Study
review for future use. This review is not without limitations. First, the only databases
Thirdly, there was a large amount of variability in the used in the systematic search were PsycINFO (EBSOhost)
types of samples studied in these development articles, which and MEDLINE Complete (EBSCOhost). PsycINFO was utilized
makes it difficult to compare the utility of each scale. due to being a specialized database that can provide unique
The following should be interpreted not as limitations, but, search results specific to topics of psychology; additionally,
instead, as interesting findings about the diverse origin of it has been used in several largely cited systematic reviews
subjects studied in each scale’s development. For instance, (Bramer et al., 2017; Elhai et al., 2017). We also utilized the
a small percentage (16/84) of the studies were conducted MEDLINE Complete database rather than the PubMed interface
with participants in the United States, with many of the due to the convenience of access through EBSOhost. Secondly,
scales having been written in languages besides English. For many reliability coefficients were not able to be listed due
example, as many as six scales were developed in Chinese to many of the articles being published solely in a foreign
(WEUS, PSUMS, MPAI, SAS-C, SQAPMPU, and MPATS), four language and, therefore, we were unable to identify and/or
in Turkish (MAS, PMPUS, PS, and PMPUS), and seven in interpret the coefficients; the articles being inaccessible; or
Korean (ECPUS, CPAS, SAPS, SAI, SAS, SAS-SV, and SOS- simply because the coefficients were not reported in the articles.
Q). Based on research conducted by the Pew Research Center That last point may also be expressed as a limitation of the
(2018), South Korea has the largest percentage of smartphone scales themselves.
owners. Therefore, the large number of scales that have been
developed for and within that population is understandable.
Yet, there were also several scales that were developed in Future Directions
English-speaking areas outside of the United States, such as Future research must be conducted in order to further identify
in Australia (MMPUS, IMAT, APSS, and MPIQ) and the potential cognitive, neurological, physical, behavioral or social
United Kingdom (PMPUQ-R). All of this information can be dysfunction related to smartphone use. Currently, no causal
viewed in Tables 1–3 and Appendix A. relationships between smartphone use and dysfunction in
Lastly, the intended use of the reviewed scales varied these previously listed areas have been established. Until then,
depending on the theoretical models or criteria upon which conceptualizing smartphone use in such a way as to assert that
they were based. Most of the scales were intended to measure the behavior can become problematic or clinical in nature should
problematic use, addiction, dependence, and excessive use be done with caution. Additionally, a standard cut-off point
of mobile phones. For instance, Leung (2008), one of the at which smartphone use becomes dysfunctional ought to be
earliest developers of a mobile phone index used to measure investigated. With more evidence of causal relationships between
“addiction” symptoms demonstrated by mobile users, based smartphone use and dysfunction as well as a more formulated
her construction of the MPAI off of the idea that adolescents and standardized conceptualization of the behavior, researchers
had started excessively using mobile phones during their will be able to construct more accurate and specific scales for
leisure time as a way of counteracting boredom due to identifying problematic use.
too much time with not enough to do; further, this type
of activity, labeled as “leisure boredom,” had been shown
to be associated with deviant activity and negative affect. CONCLUSION
Interestingly, there was a large percentage (38%) of scales
purportedly assessing smartphone or mobile phone “addiction,” This review serves as an opportunity to compare and contrast the
which is surprising given the aforementioned literature that numerous scales that have been published in the past 13 years
has been opposed to labeling problematic smartphone use as and to analyze the psychometric properties of each of the
an “addiction” (Griffiths, 2013; Panova and Carbonell, 2018). individual scales in order to determine which, if any, of the
Additionally, while several of these scales were developed with included scales should be considered to be adequate tools for
the hopes of being used in the future for clinical purposes assessing problematic smartphone use or smartphone addiction.
(e.g., diagnosis of problematic smartphone use), since there is However, it is recommended that further research be conducted
no mention of problematic smartphone use as a disorder an to sufficiently conceptualize the behavior and its development,
addiction in the DSM-IV or DSM-5 or ICD-11, it seems as manifestation, and associated dysfunction. In order to best
though authors must become content with their scales being develop tools to assess the behavior, we must first understand

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

smartphone use with an increased focus on contexts, functions, AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

and motivations for use, rather than simply borrowing item
criteria from assessment scales of more established substance BH and SF conceived the study, interpreted the data, and
or behavioral addictions. Currently, there is still much to learn participated in drafting the manuscript. TR and JS participated
about smartphone use and at what point and for whom the use in drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the
becomes problematic. final manuscript.

REFERENCES Casey, B. M. (2012). Linking Psychological Attributes to Smartphone Addiction,

Face-to-Face Communication, Present Absence and Social Capital. Unpublished
Al-Barashdi, H., Bouazza, A., and Al Zubaidi, A. (2014). Psychometric properties Master’s thesis. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
of smartphone addiction questionnaire (SPAQ) among sultan qaboos university Chen, J., Liang, Y., Mai, C., Zhong, X., and Qu, C. (2016). General deficit in
undergraduate students. J. Educ. Psychol. Stud. 8, 637–644. doi: 10.12816/ inhibitory control of excessive smartphone users: evidence from an event-
0014333 related potential study. Front. Psychol. 7:511. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00511
Aljomaa, S., Al Qudah, M., Albursan, I., Bakhiet, S., and Abduljabbar, A. (2016). Cho, S., and Lee, E. (2015). Development of a brief instrument to measure
Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables. smartphone addiction among nursing students. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 33,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 155–164. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041 216–224. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000132
Alosaimi, F. D., Alyahya, H., Alshahwan, H., Al Mahyijari, N., and Shaik, Chóliz, M. (2012). Mobile-phone addiction in adolescence: the test of mobile phone
S. A. (2016). Smartphone addiction among university students in Riyadh, dependence (TMD). Prog. Health Sci. 2, 33–44.
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med. J. 37, 675–683. doi: 10.15537/smj.2016.6. Chóliz, M., Pinto, L., Phansalkar, S. S., Corr, E., Mujjahid, A., Flores, C., et al.
14430 (2016). Development of a brief multicultural version of the test of mobile
American Psychiatric Association (1995). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual phone dependence (TMDbrief) questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 7:650. doi: 10.
Of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric 3389/fpsyg.2016.00650
Association. Chua, A. Y., Goh, D. H. L., and Lee, C. S. (2012). Mobile content contribution
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and retrieval: an exploratory study using the uses and gratifications paradigm.
Of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Inform. Process. Manag. 48, 13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2011.04.002
Association. Clifford, K. J., Joyner, K. H., Stroud, D. B., Wood, M., Ward, B., and Fernandez,
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of C. H. (1994). Mobile telephones interfere with medical electrical equipment.
Mental Disorders, 5th Edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Austr. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 17, 23–27.
American Psychiatric Association (2017). What is Addiction?. Washington, DC: Collins, N., and Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
American Psychiatric Association. relationship quality in dating couples. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 644–663. doi:
Andrews, S., Ellis, D. A., Shaw, H., and Piwek, L. (2015). Beyond self-report: tools 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
to compare estimated and real-world smartphone use. PLoS One 10:e0139004. Contractor, A. A., Weiss, N. H., Tull, M. T., and Elhai, J. D. (2017). PTSD’s relation
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139004 with problematic smartphone use: mediating role of impulsivity. Comput. Hum.
Aoki, K., and Downes, E. J. (2003). An analysis of young people’s use of and Behav. 75, 177–183. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.019
attitudes toward cell phones. Telemat. Inform. 20, 349–365. Csibi, S., Demetrovics, Z., and Szabo, A. (2016). Development and psychometric
Apple Inc (2007). Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone. Available online validation of the brief smartphone addiction scale (BSAS) with schoolchildren.
at: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-Phone- Psychiatr. Hungar. 31, 71–77.
with-iPhone/ (accessed July 26, 2018). Csibi, S., Griffiths, M. D., Cook, B., Demetrovics, Z., and Szabo, A. (2017). The
Balakrishnan, J., and Griffiths, M. D. (2017). An exploratory study of “Selfitis” and psychometric properties of the smartphone application-based addiction scale
the development of the selfitis behavior scale. Intern. J. Ment. Health Add. 16, (SABAS). Intern. J. Ment. Health Add. 16, 393–403. doi: 10.1007/s11469-017-
722–736. doi: 10.1007/s11469-017-9844-x 9787-2
Basu, S., Garg, S., Singh, M. M., and Kohli, C. (2018). Addiction-like behavior David, P., Kim, J., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W., and Curtis, C. M. (2015). Mobile
associated with mobile phone usage among medical students in Delhi. Indian phone distraction while studying. New Media Soc. 17, 1661–1679. doi: 10.1177/
J. Psychol. Med. 40, 446–451. doi: 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_59_18 1461444814531692
Beranuy, M., Chamarro, A., Graner, C., and Carbonell, X. (2009). Validación de dos De-Sola, J., Talledo, H., Rubio, G., and de Fonseca, F. R. (2017a). Development
escalas breves para evaluar la adicción a Internet y el abuso de móvil. Psicothema of a mobile phone addiction craving scale and its validation in a spanish adult
21, 480–485. population. Front. Psychiatr. 8:90. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00090
Bianchi, A., and Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile De-Sola, J., Talledo, H., Rubio, G., and de Fonseca, F. R. (2017b). Psychological
phone use. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 8, 39–51. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39 factors and alcohol use in problematic mobile phone use in the Spanish
Billieux, J. (2012). Problematic use of the mobile phone: a literature review population. Front. Psychiatr. 8:11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00011
and a pathways model. Current Psychiatry Reviews 8, 299–307. doi: 10.2174/ DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications, Vol. 26.
157340012803520522 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Billieux, J., Schimmenti, A., Khazaal, Y., Maurage, P., and Heeren, A. (2015). Are Ding, J., Liu, W., Wang, X., Lan, Y., Hu, D., Xu, Y., et al. (2018). Development
we overpathologizing everyday lift A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction of a smartphone overuse classification scale. Addict. Res. Theor. 27, 150–155.
research. J. Behav. Add. 4, 119–123. doi: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.009 doi: 10.1080/16066359.2018.1474204
Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., and Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity Domoff, S. E., Harrison, K., Gearhardt, A. N., Gentile, D. A., Lumeng, J. C., and
in actual and problematic use of the mobile phone. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 22, Miller, A. L. (2019). Development and validation of the problematic media
1195–1210. doi: 10.1002/acp.1429 use measure: a parent report measure of screen media “addiction” in children.
Bland, J., and Altman, D. (1997). Statistics notes: cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314:275. Psychol. Popul. Media Cult. 8, 2–11. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000163
Bock, B. C., Lantini, R., Thind, H., Walaska, K., Rosen, R. K., Fava, J. L., et al. (2016). Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., and Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and
The mobile phone affinity scale: enhancement and refinement. JMIR Mhealth self-esteem as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyberpsychol. Behav.
Uhealth 4:e134. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6705 11, 739–741. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0030
Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., and Franco, O. H. (2017). Eide, T. A., Aarestad, S. H., Andreassen, C. S., Bilder, R. M., and Pallesen, S. (2018).
Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: Smartphone restriction and its effect on subjective withdrawal related scores.
a prospective exploratory study. Syst. Rev. 6:245. Front. Psychol. 9:1444. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01444

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 20 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., and Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic Igarashi, T., Motoyoshi, T., Takai, J., and Yoshida, T. (2005). “The text messaging
smartphone use: a conceptual overview and systematic review of relations addiction scale: factor structure, reliability, and validity,” in Paper presented
with anxiety and depression psychopathology. J. Affect. Disord. 207, 251–259. at the sixth biennial conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology,
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030 Wellington.
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Alghraibeh, A. M., Alafnan, A. A., Aldraiweesh, Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Gómez-Vela, M., González-Gil, F., and Caballo, C.
A. A., and Hall, B. J. (2018). Fear of missing out: testing relationships with (2007). Problematic internet and cell-phone use: psychological, behavioral, and
negative affectivity, online social engagement, and problematic smartphone use. health correlates. Add. Res. Theory 15, 309–320. doi: 10.1080/160663507013
Comput. Hum. Behav. 89, 289–298. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.020 50247
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., and Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, Kang, H. Y., and Park, C. H. (2012). Development and validation of the smart
need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone phone addiction inventory. Korea. J. Psychol. 31, 563–580.
use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 509–516. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079 Kaptsis, D., King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., and Gradisar, M. (2016). Withdrawal
Ellis, R. (2017). Look Left, Look Right – But Not At Your Cell Phone In Honolulu symptoms in internet gaming disorder: a systematic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev.
Crosswalks. Available online at: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/us/smart- 43, 58–66. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.11.006
phones-crosswalks-hawaii-illegal/index.html (accessed November 16, 2017). Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş.B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., and Şahin, B. M. (2015).
Etter, J.-F. (2005). A self-administered questionnaire to measure cigarette Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: a
withdrawal symptoms: the cigarette withdrawal scale. Nicot. Tobac. Res. 7, structural equation model. J. Behav. Add. 4, 60–74. doi: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.
47–57. doi: 10.1080/14622200412331328501 005
Fidan, H. (2016). Development and validation of the mobile addiction scale: the Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee, J., Nam, J. K., and Chung, Y. (2014). Development of
components model approach. Addicta 3, 452–469. doi: 10.15805/addicta.2016. Korean smartphone addiction proneness scale for youth. Plos One 9:e97920.
3.0118 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097920
Flanagin, A. J. (2005). IM online: instant messaging use among college students. King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C., Sancassiani, F., Machado, S., and
Commun. Res. Rep. 3, 175–187. doi: 10.1080/00036810500206966 Nardi, A. E. (2014). “Nomophobia”: impact of cell phone use interfering with
Foerster, M., Roser, K., Schoeni, A., and Röösli, M. (2015). Problematic mobile symptoms and emotions of individuals with panic disorder compared with
phone use in adolescents: derivation of a short scale MPPUS-10. Intern. J. Public a control group. Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health 10:28. doi: 10.2174/
Health 60, 277–286. doi: 10.1007/s00038-015-0660-4 1745017901410010028
Google (2019). Digital Wellbeing [Mobile application software]. Available online at: Konok, V., Gigler, D., Bereczky, B. M., and Miklósi, Á (2016). Humans’ attachment
https://wellbeing.google/. to their mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment style.
Grellhesl, M., and Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2012). Using the uses and Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 537–547. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.062
gratifications theory to understand gratifications sought through text messaging Koo, H. Y. (2009). Development of a cell phone addiction scale for Korean
practices of male and female undergraduate students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, adolescents. J. Korea. Acad. Nurs. 39, 818–828.
2175–2181. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.024 Kumcagiz, H., and Gündüz, Y. (2016). Relationship between psychological well-
Griffiths, M. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial being and smartphone addiction of university students. Intern. J. Higher Educ.
framework. J. Substan. Use 10, 191–197. doi: 10.1080/14659890500114359 5, 144–156.
Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Adolescent mobile phone addiction: a cause for concern? Kuss, D. J., Harkin, L., Kanjo, E., and Billieux, J. (2018). Problematic smartphone
Educ. Health 31, 76–78. use: Investigating contemporary experiences using a convergent design. Intern.
Güzeller, C. O., and Coşguner, T. (2012). Development of a problematic mobile J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:142. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010142
phone use scale for Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15, Kwon, M., Kim, D., Cho, H., and Yang, S. (2013a). The smartphone addiction
205–211. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0210 scale: development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PLoS One
Ha, J., Chin, B., Park, D., Ryu, S., and Yu, J. (2008). Characteristics of excessive 8:e83558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083558
cellular phone use in Korean adolescents. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 11, 783–784. Kwon, M., Lee, J. Y., Won, W. Y., Park, J. W., Min, J. A., Hahn, C., et al. (2013b).
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0096 Development and validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS). PLoS One
Hadar, A., Hadas, I., Lazarovits, A., Alyagon, U., Eliraz, D., and Zangen, A. 8:e56936. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056936
(2017). Answering the missed call: initial exploration of cognitive and Labrador Encinas, J., and Villadangos González, S. M. (2010). Menores y
electrophysiological changes associated with smartphone use and abuse. PLoS nuevas tecnologías: Conductas indicadoras de posible problema de adicción.
One 12:e0180094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180094 Psicothema 22, 180–188. doi: 10.20882/adicciones.107
Hawi, N. S., and Samaha, M. (2016). To excel or not to excel: strong evidence on Laramie, D. J. (2007). Emotional and behavioral aspects of mobile phone use.
the adverse effect of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Comput. Dissert. Abstr. Intern. 68:4136.
Educ. 98, 81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.007 Lee, H., Kim, J., Fava, M., Mischoulon, D., Park, J., Shim, E., et al. (2017).
Hong, F., Chiu, S. S., and Huang, D. (2012). A model of the relationship between Development and validation study of the smartphone overuse screening
psychological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones questionnaire. Psychiatr. Res. 257, 352–357. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.
by Taiwanese university female students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 2152–2159. 07.074
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.020 Leung, L. (2008). Linking psychological attributes to addiction and improper use of
Honolulu, Hawaii, Ordinance 17-39, Bill 6 (2017). City Council. Hawaii: City and the mobile phone among adolescents in Hong Kong. J. Child. Media 2, 93–113.
County of Honolulu. doi: 10.1080/17482790802078565
Hooper, V., and Zhou, Y. (2007). “Addictive, dependent, compulsive? A study Lin, Y., Pan, Y., Lin, S., and Chen, S. (2017). Development of short-form and
of mobile phone usage,” in Proceeding of the 20th Bled Conference Emergence: screening cutoff point of the smartphone addiction inventory (SPAI-SF). Intern.
Merging and Emerging Technologies, Processes, and Institutions, Bled. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 26:e001525. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1525
Hope, L. (2013). Help, we’re addicted to our smartphones. Science 21:17. Lin, Y. H., Chang, L. R., Lee, Y. H., Tseng, H. W., Kuo, T. B., and Chen, S. H. (2014).
Hsieh, Y.-P., Yen, C.-F., and Chou, W.-J. (2019). Development and validation of the Development and validation of the smartphone addiction inventory (SPAI).
parental smartphone use management scale (PSUMS): parents’ perceived self- PLoS One 9:e98312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098312
efficacy with adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Intern. Lin, Y. H., Chiang, C. L., Lin, P. H., Chang, L. R., Ko, C. H., Lee, Y. H., et al. (2016).
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:1423. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081423 Proposed diagnostic criteria for smartphone addiction. PLoS One 11:e0163010.
Hunter, S. C., Houghton, S., Zadow, C., Rosenberg, M., Wood, L., Shilton, T., et al. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163010
(2017). Development of the adolescent preoccupation with screens scale. BMC Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., Pontes, H. M., Griffiths, M. D., Dawes, C.,
Public Health 17:652. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4657-1 Justice, L. V., et al. (2018). Measurement invariance of the short version
Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M. D., and Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation into of the problematic mobile phone use questionnaire (PMPUQ-SV) across
problematic smartphone use: the role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality eight languages. Intern. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:1213. doi: 10.3390/
factors. J. Behav. Add. 6, 378–386. doi: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.052 ijerph15061213

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 21 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

Martinotti, G., Villella, C. C., Di Thiene, D., Di Nicola, M., Bria, P., Conte, G., et al. Roberts, J. A., and David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction
(2011). Problematic mobile phone use in adolescence: a cross-sectional study. from my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among
J. Public Health 19, 545–551. doi: 10.1007/s10389-011-0422-6 romantic partners. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.
Matar Boumosleh, J., and Jaalouk, D. (2017). Depression, anxiety, and smartphone 07.058
addiction in university students- a cross sectional study. PLoS One 12:0182239. Roberts, J. A., Pullig, C., and Manolis, C. (2015). I need my smartphone: a
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182239 hierarchical model of personality and cell-phone addiction. Pers. Individ. Differ.
Merlo, L. J., Stone, A. M., and Bibbey, A. (2013). Measuring problematic mobile 79, 13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.049
phone use: development and preliminary psychometric properties of the PUMP Roberts, J. A., YaYa, L. H. P., and Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction:
scale. J. Add. 2013:7. cell-phone activities and addiction among male and female college students.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, J. Behav. Add. 3, 254–265. doi: 10.1556/jba.3.2014.015
D. L., et al. (2013). The COSMIN Checklist Manual. Available online at: Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., and Rokkum, J.
www.cosmin.nl (accessed August 2018). (2013). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: an empirical
Monge Roffarello, A., and De Russis, L. (2019). “The race towards digital wellbeing: investigation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2501–2511. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.
issues and opportunities,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human 06.006
Factors in Computing Systems, (New York, NY: ACM), 386. Rozgonjuk, D., Rosenvald, B., Janno, S., and Täht, K. (2016). Developing a shorter
Nunnally, J., and Bernstein, L. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: version of the estonian smartphone addiction proneness scale (E-SAPS18).
McGraw-Hill Higher, INC. Cyberpsychol. J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 10, 4. doi: 10.5817/CP2016-4-4
O’Connor, S. S., Shain, L. M., Whitehill, J. M., and Ebel, B. E. (2017). Measuring Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass
a conceptual model of the relationship between compulsive cell phone use, in- Commun. Soc. 3, 3–37. doi: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02
vehicle cell phone use, and motor vehicle crash. Accid. Analy. Prevent. 99(Pt A), Rutland, J. B., Sheets, T., and Young, T. (2007). Development of a scale to
372–378. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.016 measure problem use of short message service: the SMS problem use diagnostic
O’Connor, S. S., Whitehill, J. M., King, K. M., Kernic, M. A., Boyle, L. N., questionnaire. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 10, 841–843. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.
Bresnahan, B. W., et al. (2013). Compulsive cell phone use and history of motor 9943
vehicle crash. J. Adolesc. Health 53, 512–519. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013. Samaha, M., and Hawi, N. S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction,
05.015 stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Comput. Hum. Behav.
Olivencia-Carrion, M. A., Ferri-Garcia, R., Rueda, M., and Lopez-Torrecillas, F. 57, 321–325. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.045
(2018a). Reliability and construct validity of a questionnaire to assess the Scott, D. A., Valley, B., and Simecka, B. A. (2016). Mental health concerns in the
nomophobic (QANIP). BMC Public Health digital age. Intern. J. Men. Health Add. 15, 604–613. doi: 10.1007/s11469-016-
Olivencia-Carrion, M. A., Ramirez-Ucles, I., Holgado-Tello, P., and 9684-0
Lopez-Torrecillas, F. (2018b). Validation of a spanish questionnaire Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., and Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy:
on mobile phone abuse. Front. Psychol. 9:621. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018. a theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 22, 159–170. doi: 10.1016/0148-
00621 2963(91)90050-8
Olufadi, Y. (2015). Gravitating towards mobile phone (GoToMP) during lecture Shin, L. Y. (2014). A comparative study of mobile internet usage between the U.S.
periods by students: why are they using it? And how can it be measured? and Korea. J. Eur. Psychol. Stud. 5, 46–55. doi: 10.5334/jeps.cg
Comput. Educ. 87, 423–436. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.013 Smetaniuk, P. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and
Pamuk, M., and Atli, A. (2016). Development of a problematic mobile phone use prediction of problematic cell phone use. J. Behav. Add. 3, 41–53. doi: 10.1556/
scale for university students: validity and reliability study. Dusunen. Adam. 29, JBA.3.2014.004
49–59. doi: 10.5350/DAJPN2016290105 Starcevic, V. (2013). Is internet addiction a useful concept? Aust. N Z J. Psychiatry
Pancani, L., Preti, E., and Riva, P. (2019). The psychology of smartphone: 47, 16–19. doi: 10.1177/0004867412461693
the development of the smartphone impact scale (SIS). Assessment doi: Starcevic, V. (2016). Tolerance and withdrawal symptoms may not be helpful to
1073191119831788 [Epub ahead of print]. enhance understanding of behavioural addictions. Addiction 111, 1307–1308.
Panova, T., and Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? doi: 10.1111/add.13381
J. Behav. Add. 7, 252–259. doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.49 Su, S., Pan, T. T., Liu, X. Q., Chen, X. W., Wang, Y. J., and Li, M. Y. (2014).
Parasuraman, S., Sam, A. T., Yee, S., Chuon, B., and Ren, L. Y. (2017). Smartphone Development of the smartphone addiction scale for college students. Chin.
usage and increased risk of mobile phone addiction: a concurrent study. Int. J. Ment. Health J. 28, 392–397.
Pharm. Investig. 7, 125–131. doi: 10.4103/jphi.JPHI_56_17 Tao, S. M., Fu, J. L., Wang, H., Hao, J. H., and Tao, F. B. (2013). Development of
Pawłowska, B., and Potembska, E. (2009). Właściwości psychometryczne self-rating questionnaire for adolescent problematic mobile phone use and the
kwestionariusza do badania uzależnienia od telefonu komórkowego (KBUTK). psychometric evaluation in undergraduates. Chin. J. Sch. Health 34, 26–29.
Badania Schizofrenia? 10, 322–329. Thompson, B. (ed.) (2003). Score Reliability: Contemporary Thinking On Reliability
Pedrero-Pérez, E. J., Rodríguez-Monje, M. T., Gallardo-Alonso, F., Fernández- Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Girón, M., Pérez-López, M., and Chicharro-Romero, J. (2007). Validación de Toda, M., Monden, K., Kubo, K., and Morimoto, K. (2004). Cellular phone
un instrumento para la detección de trastornos de control de impulsos y dependence tendency of female university students. Jpn. J. Hyg. 59, 383–386.
adicciones: el MULTICAGE CAD-4. Trastorn. Adict. 9, 269–278. doi: 10.1016/ doi: 10.1265/jjh.59.383
S1575-0973(07)75656-75658 Tossell, C., Kortum, P., Shepard, C., Rahmati, A., and Zhong, L. (2015). Exploring
Pedrero-Pérez, E. J., Ruiz Sánchez de León, J. M., Rojo Mota, G., Llanero smartphone addiction: insights from long-term telemetric behavioral measures.
Luque, M., Pedrero Aguilar, J., Morales Alonso, S., et al. (2018). Information Intern. J. Inter. Mobile Technol. 9, 37–43. doi: 10.3991/ijim.v9i2.4300
and Communications Technologies (ICT): problematic use of Internet, Trub, L., and Barbot, B. (2016). The paradox of phone attachment: development
video games, mobile phones, instant messaging and social networks using and validation of the young adult attachment to phone scale (YAPS). Comput.
MULTICAGE-TIC. Adicciones 30, 19–32. doi: 10.20882/adicciones.806 Hum. Behav. 64, 663–672. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.050
Pew Research Center (2018). Smartphone Ownership in Advanced Economies Twice Staff (2018). Smartphones Could Reach TV Ownership Rates Within
Higher Than In Emerging [Infographic]. Available online at: https://www.pew 5 Years. Available online at: https://www.twice.com/product/smartphones-
research.org/global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-ar could-reach-tv-ownership-rates-within-5-years-cta (accessed July 26, 2018).
ound-the-world-but-not-always-equally/pg_global-technology-use-2018_2019 Valderrama, J. A. (2014). Development and Validation of the Problematic
-02-05_0-01/ (accessed May 11, 2018). Smartphone Use Scale. Doctoral dissertation (Alhambra, CA: Alliant
Potenza, M. N. (2014). Non-substance addictive behaviors in the context of DSM-5. International University).
Add. Behav. 39, 1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.004 van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., and Kommers, P. A. M.
Potenza, M. N., Higuchi, S., and Brand, M. (2018). Call for research into a wider (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: the role of
range of behavioural addictions. Nature 555:7694. smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 22 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

age, and gender. Comput. Hum. Behav. 45, 411–420. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014. Yildirim, C., and Correia, A. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia:
12.039 development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Comput. Hum.
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., and McD Young, R. (2010). Needing to connect: Behav. 49, 130–137. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
the effect of self and others on young people’s involvement with their Young, K. S. (1996). Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the internet:
mobile phones. Austr. J. Psychol. 62, 194–203. doi: 10.1080/0004953090356 a case that breaks the stereotype. Psychol. Rep. 79(Pt. 1), 899–902. doi: 10.2466/
7229 pr0.1996.79.3.899
Weed, N., Butcher, N. J., McKenna, T., and Ben-Porath, Y. (1992). New Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder.
measures for assessing alcohol and other drug problems with the MMPI-2: Cyberpsychol. Behav. 1, 237–244. doi: 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237
The APS and AAS. J. Pers. Assess. 58, 389–404. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa
5802_15 Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
World Health Organization [WHO] (2018). International Statistical Classification absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th Revision). Geneva: WHO. potential conflict of interest.
Xiong, J., Zhou, Z., Chen, W., You, Z., and Zhai, Z. (2012). Development of the
mobile phone addiction tendency scale for college students. Chine. Ment. Health Copyright © 2020 Harris, Regan, Schueler and Fields. This is an open-access article
J. 26, 222–225. distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
Yen, C., Tang, T., Yen, J., Lin, H., Huang, C., Liu, S., et al. (2009). Symptoms The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
of problematic cellular phone use, functional impairment and its association original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
with depression among adolescents in Southern Taiwan. J. Adolesc. 32, 863–873. publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.006 use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 23 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672

Harris et al. Problematic Smartphone Use Scales

APPENDIX A | EBSCOHOST SEARCH STRATEGY

(smartphone[tiab] OR smart phone[tiab] OR cellular phone[tiab] OR cell phone[tiab] OR cell-phone[tiab] OR mobile device[tiab]
OR mobile phone[tiab])
AND
(problematic[tiab] OR problem[tiab] OR dependence[tiab] OR dependency[tiab] OR overuse[tiab] OR addiction[tiab] OR
nomophobia[tiab] OR attachment[tiab] OR excessive[tiab] OR compulsive[tiab])
AND
(questionnaire[tiab] OR scale[tiab] OR index[tiab] OR test[tiab] OR inventory[tiab] OR index[tiab] OR instrument[tiab] OR
assessment[tiab] OR measurement[tiab] OR survey[tiab] OR psychometric∗ [tiab] OR validation[tiab] OR development[tiab])
AND
(“1990”[PDAT]: “2019”[PDAT]).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 24 May 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 672