Next Article in Journal
Adsorption of Fluorides in Drinking Water by Palm Residues
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Communication and Collaboration: A Comparative Study between University Students from Spain and Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Bucharest University of Economic Studies through Green Facades in an Economically Efficient Manner
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Bring-Your-Own-Device Program on Flipped Learning in Higher Education Students
Open AccessArticle

Construction of an Instrument for the Evaluation of the Effects of Information and Communication Technologies among Young People

1
Department of Education, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
2
National Prevention Committee, Proyecto Hombre Association, 28027 Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Artistic and Body Education, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
4
Department of Didactic and School Organization, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(9), 3785; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093785
Received: 1 April 2020 / Revised: 21 April 2020 / Accepted: 30 April 2020 / Published: 7 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Teacher Training in Active Methodologies for Ecosystem Learning)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate the issue of access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) at younger ages, which is leading to dependency on mobile phones, video games, and compulsive aimless internet surfing—an issue that schools have been increasingly seeking to tackle. With the appearance of emerging technologies, and not forgetting those already established, an instrument is required that will adapt to new casuistry and help to design intervention programmes in accordance with present and future patterns of use, abuse, and addiction. Studies such as the one proposed here will provide data about the profile of this population in order to improve programmes and influence the ICT policies rolled out by central and local governments. The chief aim of this paper is to construct and validate an instrument capable of evaluating problems experienced by young people in relation to technology use, abuse, and addiction within the programmes developed in Spain. The research design used in this study is mixed empirical, non-experimental, and sequential in nature in three stages: interviews conducted with 11 prevention professionals, group of 11 experts and pilot group of 30 participants in indicated prevention programmes. The findings of the study indicate that the instrument fulfills the parameters established to be considered a systematic empirically sustainable instrument, since the young population needs to identify these patterns in order to understand and prevent risk behaviours associated with their use.
Keywords: techno-addiction; indicated prevention; evaluation; young people techno-addiction; indicated prevention; evaluation; young people

1. Introduction

The technological developments experienced over the past decade have brought forth a wide range of devices, applications, and tools designed for recreation, communication, and the services sector, becoming essential activities that facilitate everyday life. However, in some cases, their use has fuelled different types of repetitive, addictive or abusive behaviours, and this phenomenon has been studied within various disciplines such as psychology, education, and sociology [1,2,3,4,5].
Some studies have shown that access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) at increasingly young ages can make subjects more prone to inappropriate usage, triggering dependency on mobile phones, video games, compulsive aimless internet surfing, social media, or instant messaging apps.
As noted by Matalí, García, Marín and Pardo [6], when technology changes from being a means to an end in itself, we become subject to a situation of dependency, and even addiction. Great social alarm has been generated about the addiction to new technologies in adolescents, which is reflected in various studies [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. When use of such technology is high but controlled, we talk about problematic usage, taking as a basis the data provided by the Pfizer Foundation’s study conducted in 2009 [14], which indicated that 98% of young Spanish people aged 11–20 used the internet, and of these, around 3%–6% spent an average of 1.5 hours a day online. Along these lines, the report published in 2015 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [15] showed that Spanish students spent an average of 2 hours 20 minutes a day online, a much higher figure than advised. Spain’s National Institute of Statistics [16] signalled that 95% of Spanish teenagers, ranging in age from 10 to 15, went online every day. In any case, when dealing with digital or internet devices and/or the tools that require them in order to be used, the term techno-addiction can be used [17].
Adolescence is characterised by a prioritisation of immediate gratification and living in the present. Teenagers believe they are invincible, and they are interested in new stimulating and risky experiences, which makes them more susceptible to engaging in high-risk behaviours [18,19]. They have difficulty controlling their impulses, they are easily influenced by the media and advertising, and drug taking during adolescence can be linked with increased internet use or video gaming [20].
Various risk factors are related to maladaptive or problematic usages of ICTs [21,22,23].
The results of Chen, Ho and Lwin’s [24] research revealed that risky information and communications technology (ICT) use, moral disengagement, social norms, and traditional bullying perpetration were the main predictors of cyberbullying perpetration, while risky ICT use and traditional bullying victimization were the major contributors of cyberbullying victimization (Gossip, Cyber-baiting, Happy Slapping…).
In order to examine these phenomena, a variety of instruments has been developed to measure the prevalence, abuse or problematic use of ICT among teenagers and students, largely associated with web surfing, the use of mobile phones, the consumption of television, and video-gaming [25,26]. López-Fenández, Freixa-Blanxart and Honrubia-Serrano [27] reviewed the available scales for assessing problematic internet use and to validate a new scale about the Problematic Internet Entertainment Use for Adolescents. However, with the appearance of emerging technologies, not forgetting the established ones, an instrument is required that will adapt to new casuistry and help to design intervention programs in accordance with present and future patterns of use, abuse, and addiction [17,22,23].
For more than 20 years, Proyecto Hombre has been helping families who ask for support with regard to problems affecting their children. It runs indicated prevention programs for young people. According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs [28], Indicated Prevention involves identifying and intervening with young people who present indicators that are highly correlated with the risk of developing problems related with drug-taking and other risk behaviours over the course of their lives, or who present early drug consumption patterns. Hence, the aim is not only to prevent young people from taking drugs in the first place, but also to prevent the development of dependency, decrease the frequency of use, or prevent progression towards more harmful consumption patterns or risk behaviours.
The main goal of this paper is to construct and validate an instrument, to be used with young people, in order to evaluate potential problems with regard to technology use, abuse, and addiction, in indicated prevention programmes run by Proyecto Hombre Association throughout Spain.

2. Materials and Methods

The research design used is mixed empirical, nonexperimental and sequential in nature. It will explore relationships by associating and comparing data groups [29]. This design is rooted in the basic premise of a prior exploration, since there are no standardized measurement instruments available or a compendium of theoretically justified variables, prioritizing the compilation of qualitative data as the preliminary stage [30]. It will also help to improve research processes and products [31], providing quantifiable and contextual information [32] and allowing for the triangulation of results, the complementary nature of the phenomena studied, the discovery of singularities based on the profiles encountered, the sequencing of instruments designed, and the expansion of the study as we move through each of the stages [33].
Since this is a multi-stage study, the different stages designed to respond to the initially formulated research aim are as follows:
  • Stage 1 (Designing a first draft based on the information provided by in-depth interviews conducted with prevention professionals): In order to compile information to construct the instrument aimed at young people involved in indicated prevention programs run by the Proyecto Hombre Association, capable of evaluating possible technology use, abuse or addiction problems; initially, we sought to conduct semi-structured interviews with the programme officers, in order to compile information about the real needs of the professional team working directly with the target study group. Based on the analysis of this information, a first draft of the instrument was developed.
  • Stage 2 (Results of the procedure for validating the instruments by means of expert opinion): The tool developed in the previous stage was submitted for validation to a group of experts in the key issues of this project, gathering from them agreement indices for each of the evaluation elements proposed. The result of this activity provided a consensus of responses used to develop a second draft of the tool.
  • Stage 3 (Experimental application of the instrument to a pilot group): Having taken on board the recommendations of the experts consulted, the next stage that allowed us to develop the definitive instrument involved applying said instrument to a pilot group. The aim was to identify the reliability and validity of the measures, considering whether the questions were appropriate, whether the wording of the items was correct and comprehensible, whether the questions were of the right length, whether the answers were correctly categorized, whether there was any resistance or psychological barriers or rejection towards any of the questions, whether they were ordered logically, and whether the duration of the questionnaire was acceptable to respondents. This process gave shape to the definitive instrument.

3. Results

Below we set out the results of the different stages of this study, showing the process by which, the instrument was progressively constructed.

3.1. Stage 1: Designing a First Draft Based on the Information Provided by In-depth Interviews Conducted with Prevention Professionals

The aim of this first stage is to establish the core issues surrounding information and communication technology use, abuse, and addiction among the young people who take part in the indicated prevention programmes run by the Proyecto Hombre Association. Based on this evidence, the foundations can be laid to build an instrument to evaluate this problem systematically and empirically.
Semi-structured interviews were used to access this information, based on 13 questions designed to collate the following data:
  • Technological devices used by minors and young people within the indicated prevention programme.
  • Activities or tasks they carry out using these devices.
  • Knowledge possessed by programme officers about technology use, problematic use and addiction.
  • Indicators used to determine technology use, problematic use and addiction in the personal, family, social, education, and occupational or work dimensions.
  • Reasons that lead to use, problematic use, or addiction.
  • Profile of indicated prevention programme users.
  • Attitude of the family to the consumption of technology.
  • Family information required to determine the problem.
  • Other necessary information.
The team of indicated prevention programme officers from the Proyecto Hombre Association who took part in this study was 11 women and 4 men from Alicante, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Malaga and Valladolid. With an average age of 38, and 9 years of professional experience on average, most of these professionals are trained in psychology, although some of them are also trained in primary education teaching or social work.
The interviews were incorporated into the qualitative analysis programme NVivo 11, using the interview questions as key elements when constituting the category tree shown in Table 1.
Eight percent of the coded text is classified in the category “Devices used by the users”. Ten percent of the text pertains to actions or tasks carried out when using the devices. Regarding technology use, problematic use and addiction, 6% of references were coded in this category. The weighting of indicators for the different dimensions (personal, social, family, education, occupational or work) is between 8% and 12%. Seven percent of the coded text is classified in the category “Profile of technology use in prevention programmes” and 8% in the “Family information required to specific the problem”. Furthermore, the two categories with the lowest percentage weighting are related with family attitude, at 2%, and other information required to define the problem, at 4% of the coded references.
The instrument derived from this first stage is made up of a total of 10 analytical dimensions, 46 assessment elements, and 122 items. It is accompanied by a first round of elements not accounted for, the purpose of which is to identify the person providing information, and one last question about final observations referring to the tool.
Differentiation between elements and items stems from the fact that the evaluation elements are understood as units of observation that configure each analytical dimension, and the items are analytical units established within the evaluation elements as scaled and compulsory multiple-choice items.
The instrument is applied by means of a personal interview between indicated prevention programme officers and the user offering the information.

3.2. Stage 2: Results of the Procedure for Validating the Instruments by Means of Expert Opinion

The end product of the previous stage had to be validated by means of a suitable methodological procedure. In this instance, expert opinion [34] was the chosen method because, rather than being expressed quantitatively using an index or coefficient, it is estimated by means of a generally subjective or intersubjective opinion given by experts in the field. The purpose of this technique is to collate the opinions of people whose academic or professional background reflects their capacity to give evidence or critical assessments of the object of study [35], which enhances the validity of the content studied by seeking rational consensus [36].
When setting up this group, the selection criteria used brought together academics and professionals from the field of drug addiction prevention, ICT specialists, as well as experts in the design of instruments. A total of 10 people took part in the expert panel, as shown in Table 2.
According to Skjong and Wentworth and Escobar [37] and Cuervo [35], the analysis process involved e-mailing the group an invitation to complete a validation protocol for the two instruments generated in the previous stage. The procedure entailed evaluating each of the elements of the tool aimed at users, assigning a score between 1 and 5 (1 indicating the minimum score and 5 the maximum score), in accordance with the following criteria:
  • Breadth of the content: fit of the question wording so that there is no redundancy and it is consistent with the response options.
  • Congruency: linkage and coherence of the items that make up the instrument.
  • Pertinence: correspondence between the content of the item and the dimension in which it will be used.
  • Precision: rigorousness with which words have been used when formulating each item in order to express what said item aims to measure.
  • Clarity: accuracy of the wording of each item, ensuring it is clear and easy to understand.
Once the ten experts had given their general opinion when validating the instrument designed to be used with young users of indicated prevention programmes, we observed that all the parameters defined had scored highly (see Table 3).
A breakdown of the evaluation data for each of the elements that make up the instrument confirmed this result. Furthermore, the consensus obtained between the groups of expert judges was high according to Aiken’s V coefficient for the five stipulated criteria (V > 0.50) (see Table 4).
The output from this second stage was a tool comprising the 10 analytical dimensions from the first draft, increasing the evaluation elements to 50 and the number of items to 138. It is accompanied by a first round of elements not previously taken into consideration, the purpose of which is to identify the user who is providing information, and one final question relating to final observations about the tool.

3.3. Stage 3: Experimental Application of the Instrument to a Pilot Group

Having incorporated the recommendations of the experts to create the second draft of the instrument, the next stage of definitive construction was the experimental application to a pilot group of users participating in indicated prevention programmes run by Proyecto Hombre. The aim of this pilot test was to evaluate the consistency of the instrument (properties of the scale and its constituent elements) and its appropriateness to the object of measurement.
To study the psychometric properties of the instrument, the following analytical procedures were applied to the dimensions that, in their wording, incorporate elements configured by items from the scaled evaluation (the dimensions Description of family sphere and Availability of digital devices in the home are made up of elements of choice and are not eligible for validation):
  • Internal Consistency Analysis, in the sense of endowing the items with significance, in other words, ensuring that each of them measures a portion of the trait or characteristic studied. To this end, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used [38].
  • Analysis of the discrimination capacity of the elements to reinforce the one-dimensional nature of the test. Student’s t-test was applied to the mean values of the established groups, indication of validity endorsed by García, Gil y Rodríguez [39].
The 30 people chosen for the pilot study are taking part in indicated prevention programmes at six centres run by Proyecto Hombre (Asturias, Catalonia, Madrid, Malaga, Melilla and Murcia) in a similar proportion in each of them (17.7%). 86.7% are male, and the remaining 13.3% are female. The age of the participants ranged from 14 to 22, and the majority of them had completed secondary education (73.3%). This number of people is valid to carry out this phase of the study according to McMillan and Schumacher [40].
Looking at the evaluation of the elements in the “Personal sphere” dimension, we see that the total value for Cronbach’s Alpha in the scale (0.505) represents an acceptable correlation [41], an acceptable level of stability in the responses; hence, this part of the instrument presents signs of guaranteed reliability.
The discriminatory power of all the items in the test reinforces its one-dimensionality. To carry out this procedure, three closed items were chosen with ordinal response choices (response scale from 1 to 5) so that the sum total was recoded into three groups (Low, Medium and High):
  • 1 = Low group (minimum value, percentile 33): (6, 16)
  • 2 = Medium group (percentile 34, percentile 66): (17, 23)
  • 3 = High group (percentile 67, maximum value): (24, 35)
By applying Student’s t-test for independent samples, we were able to establish the existence or non-existence of statistical difference (n.s. = 0.05) between the groups that score low and high in the selected elements. The results obtained using this test based on the 6 items belonging to this dimension and present in Table 5 show that 67% of the element possesses acceptable statistical discriminatory power, which indicates acceptable levels of validity in this dimension. The nondiscriminatory elements were maintained on account of their relevance in the instrument and in accordance with the suggestions made by the programme officers.
The second dimension analysed, “ICT consumption habits”, presented a low level of reliability, reflected in Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, 0.27. Furthermore, discriminatory power revealed that only 25% of items have a valid discriminatory power (see Table 6). These results concluded that the dimension lacked acceptable reliability and validity criteria, and so we followed the recommendations of the prevention programme officers, by eliminating elements without discriminatory power and incorporating 13 new elements that would ensure the clarity and pertinence of the elements in the dimension according to the characteristics of the target population.
Analysis of the 14 scaled items of the dimension “User’s reasons for consuming ICT” revealed a guarantee of stability in the measure they offer, reflected in the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.58. The application of the item discrimination test provided data that supported the observations proposed by the prevention programme officers participating in the study, since only 43% of items offered acceptable validity (see Table 7). The relevance of the contents processed did not lead to the suppression of any element but did lead to a redrafting of items where the discrimination was confusing.
A Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.828 guaranteed the reliability of the 10 elements that make up the dimension “User’s emotional management”. Furthermore, the analytical test to establish the validity of these questions indicated that 70% offered valid content, leading us to revise the wording of three items (see Table 8).
The reliability of the scaled items in the dimension “ICT in the family setting” when the subject is living in the family home is very high (Cronbach Alpha = 0.839). Sixty percent of these items possess an acceptable discriminatory power, which validates their inclusion in the instrument (see Table 9). Four of these items required further work based on the suggestions of the programme officers, who suggested that they should not be removed from the instrument but instead the wording needed to be revised to make them more understandable.
The eight elements that make up the dimension “ICT in the social setting”, once the relevant reliability test had been applied, contributed a global value of 0.890, clearly demonstrating their metric consistency. Furthermore, the application of the validity test showed that 100% of these items possess discriminatory power (see Table 10).
The internal consistency of the nine scaled elements that describe the dimension “ICT in the education setting” was 0.880, scientifically guaranteeing their reliability. The validity of these items, measured by means of the corresponding item discriminatory test, showed that 89% measure the construct covered by this dimension, with just one of the items requiring revision. Furthermore, it should be noted that, at the request of the programme officers, a new element was incorporated into this dimension on account of its relevance for the subject studied (see Table 11).
Finally, the eight elements that make up the dimension “ICT in the work setting” possess a high degree of reliability, as reflected in the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, 0.769, although in contrast these are not items that possess an acceptable level of discriminatory power, and accordingly all of them needed to be revised (see Table 12). However, it should be noted that only 5% of these prevention programmes participants are engaged in the employment market; hence, the results obtained understandable. Accordingly, the decision was made to maintain the elements as originally formulated.
Following the same analytical dynamic as in the previous stages, the result of this third stage was a tool in the format of a personalised interview administered by prevention programme officers, made up of 10 analytical dimensions, 50 evaluation elements, and 156 items (see Table 13). As indicated previously, it is supplemented by a first round of elements, the purpose of which is to identify the user who is providing the information, along with an observations section in each dimension, and one final question related to final observations about the tool, all of which are not included in the total number of elements that make up in the final instrument (see Appendix A).

4. Discussion

Following the results set out regarding the construction and validation of the instrument created to identify technology use, abuse or addiction among the young people taking part in indicated prevention programmes run by the Proyecto Hombre Association throughout Spain, we can confirm that the instrument fulfills the parameters established to be classed as a systematic and empirically sustainable instrument, since the youth population needs to identify these patterns in order to understand and prevent risk behaviours associated with technology usage. In turn, the instrument must differentiate between the applications used and the use being made of them, in order to understand whether minors are using or abusing them [25]. This instrument adds to the contributions of López-Fenández, Freixa-Blanxart and Honrubia-Serrano’s internet abuse scale for adolescents [27], detailing the devices used, the habits and reasons for consumption and the effects of use in the family, professional and emotional dimensions. There are direct connections to the instrument designed by Chen, Ho and Lwin [24] in the emotional and social effects, but the possible situations of bullying that arise with the use of these devices are not specified. Also, the scale designed by Peris, Maganto and Garaigordobil [42], focused on the use of social networks, prioritizes elements that are worked on in the instrument designed here such as the social use of devices and nomophobia.
The Jiménez, Alvarado and Llopis [43] instrument assesses the usefulness of ICT in the work of university students, the emotions that their use generates and the feelings of frustration that their absence generates. Understood by these elements as predictors of ICT addiction, the instrument referred to in this article considers those aspects in the adolescent population participating in the indicated prevention programmes. More than 28% of university students display risk behaviours with regard to the use of technology, and other variables need to be taken into consideration such as personality, family setting, and peer group [44]. The study conducted by [45] establishes that 90.6% of the population engages in controlled use of the internet, and just 9.4% have frequent problems.
However, the specificity of the adolescents attended in the indicated prevention programs for drug use and other risky behaviors and their relationship to the problematic use of ICT [46] and other behavioral problems or mismanagement of impulsivity [47] make it necessary to create an instrument adapted to new casuistic. Hence, this instrument facilitates the identification of use, abuse, and addiction profiles and their relationship with the technologies associated with these patterns.

5. Conclusions

By means of a mixed, nonsequential experimental study, three stages were developed with a view to achieving the aim of this research.
First, conducting semi-structured interviews with 15 programme officers working at Proyecto Hombre has shed light on risk factors in the family, education, and social dimensions, which can lead to problematic or addictive behaviour with regard to technological devices. This information was used to consolidate an initial draft of the evaluation instrument, comprising a total of 10 analytical dimensions, 46 evaluation elements, and 122 items.
Then, a panel of 10 experts in the evaluation of technology use, abuse, and addiction took part in the project. The results of the consensus analysis conducted allowed us to reshape the instrument into 10 analytical dimensions, 50 evaluation elements, and 138 items.
The third stage in the design of this tool involved the experimental application of this instrument to a pilot group of 30 users. The aim of this stage was to identify the reliability and validity indices of the instrument. Analysis of the information provided in this stage gave rise to the definitive instrument, made up of 10 analytical dimensions, 50 evaluation elements and 156 items. These dimensions are: description of the personal sphere, description of the family sphere, availability of digital devices in the home, ITC consumption habits, reasons for consuming ICT, description of emotional management, ICT in the family setting, ICT in the social setting, ICT in the education setting, and ICT in the work setting. The instrument was applied by means of a personalised interview conducted by prevention programme officers with users of the programme who provided the information.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.R.U., J.A.F.E. and G.M.-S.; formal analysis, I.G.L., B.Q.O. and E.R.U.; methodology, B.Q.O.; project administration, I.G.L.; validation, B.Q.O. and E.R.U.; writing—original draft, I.G.L. and G.M.-S.; writing—review & editing, I.G.L. and J.A.F.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundación Bancaria “La Caixa” and Proyecto Hombre Association.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Evaluation tool for problems of use, abuse or addiction of ICT
Property of Proyecto Hombre Association
PERSONAL SPHERE DESCRIPTION
1.
What is the reason or reasons that led you to attend the youth program?
________________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Point out how much time you spend on leisure per day:
__ Less than 1 hour __ 1 or 2 hours __ 3 or 4 hours __ 5 or 6 hours __ More than 6 hours
3.
Value from 0 to 10 (0 = nothing and 10 = much) the accomplishment you do of the following activities:
Practice some sport012345678910
Going to the movies012345678910
Volunteering012345678910
Going out with friends012345678910
Watching TV012345678910
Listening to music012345678910
Reading012345678910
Play on the computer, tablet or video console012345678910
Surf the Net012345678910
Use the social media012345678910
Chat in Instant Messaging012345678910
Other option012345678910
4.
How do you like doing the activities in your leisure time? Mark three options according to your preferences, indicating them in 1º, 2º or 3º (1º = highest priority at 3º = lowest priority).
__ Alone __ With friends __ With classmates __ With the whole family
__ With my father/mother/tutor __ With my siblings __ With my partner __ With my children
5.
Do you consume any kind of drugs? __ Yes __ No
6.
If yes, please indicate which one: _____________________________________________
7.
Have you attended or attend any other programs or received any therapy? __ Yes __ No
8.
If yes, please indicate which one: _____________________________________________
9.
Indicate to what extent you identify yourself with the following statements (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
I feel frustrated when I have limitations with technology012345678910
I lie about the actual amount of time I spend on technology012345678910
I prefer to interact with others through technology012345678910
I escape reality through the use of technology012345678910
I seek refuge in technology because I feel alone012345678910
I can’t control the use of technology in my everyday life012345678910
DESCRIPTION OF FAMILY SPHERE
10.
What is your usual place of residence?
__ The family home __ A rented apartment __ A children’s centre
__ A major school or residence __ An owned flat _ Another, indicate which one: ___________
11.
Who do you live with at your usual residence?
__ Father/tutor __ Mother/tutor __siblings __ Grandparents __ Teachers __ Friends
__ Classmates __ Partner __ Sons __ Others, indicate which one: ____________
In case of living in the family home
12.
What is the marital status of your parents? (In the case of reconstructed families, note the situation of the father and the mother in the 12th bis).
__ Married __ Domestic couple __ Separated __ Divorced
__ Widower __ Other, indicate which one: ____________
12 bis.
In the case of reconstructed families, indicate the situation of the mother.
__Married __ Domestic partner __ Separated __ Divorced
__ Widow __ Other, indicate which one: ____________
13.
Regarding communication, how is the relationship between them?
__ None/Very bad __ Little/Bad __ Good __ Very Good __ Don’t know, don’t answer
In case of living with your partner
12.
What is the link with it?
__ Married __ Domestic couple __ Separated __ Divorced
13.
Regarding communication, how is the relationship with your partner?
__ None/Very bad __ Little/Bad __ Good __ Very Good __ Don’t know, don’t answer
In the case of living with classmates or Friends
13.
How is your communication with them?
__ None/Very bad __ Little/Bad __ Good __ Very Good __ Don’t know, don’t answer
14.
What studies does your father/tutor have? __________________________
15.
What does your father/tutor (profession) do? __________________________
16.
What studies does your mother/tutor have? __________________________
17.
What does your mother/tutor do? __________________________
18.
What studies does your partner have? __________________________
19.
What does your partner do? __________________________
In case of having children
20.
How many do you have?
21.
How old are they? _______
In case of living in the family home
20.
How many siblings do you have? __________________________
21.
If you have any siblings, what place do you occupy among them? __________________________
22.
If you have any siblings, how old are they? __________________________
23.
What do your brothers do?
Study, how many of them? _____ Work, how many of them? _____
Unemployed, how many of them? ____ Unemployed and do nothing, how many of them? _____
24.
What is your relationship with your family members? (communication, coexistence, etc.)
__ None __ Little __ Good __ Very Good
In case of living in the family home
25.
What does your father/mother/tutor say about your use of technologies?
________________________________________________________________________________________
In case of living with your partner
25.
What does he/she tell you about your use of technologies?
________________________________________________________________________________________
26.
Based on what you said in the previous question, what do you think about it? ________________________________________________________________________________________
AVAILABILITY OF DIGITAL DEVICES AT HOME
27.
Indicate which digital devices do you have in your usual residence:
__ Mobile phone __ Video console __ Television Smart-TV __ Smartwatch
ICT CONSUMPTION HABITS
28.
Indicate how much time you spend each day using technology:
__ Less than 1 hour __ 1 or 2 hours __ 3 or 4 hours __ 5 or 6 hours __ More than 6 hours
29.
Indicate which type of devices you use the most (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
Mobile phone012345678910
Video console012345678910
Computer012345678910
Tablet012345678910
Television Smart-TV012345678910
Smartwatch012345678910
Ebook012345678910
Other option012345678910
30.
Who do you like to use technologies with? Mark three options according to your preferences, indicating them in 1º, 2º or 3º (1º = highest priority at 3º = lowest priority).
__ Alone __ With friends __ With classmates __ With the whole family ___ With my father/mother/tutor __ With my siblings __ With my partner __ With my children
31.
When you are using technologies, do you remember to eat (breakfast, lunch or dinner)?
__I don’t remember __ Sometimes I remember __ Yes, I remember
32.
In case of choosing options one and/or two (I don’t remember, sometimes I remember), why do you think you forget?
________________________________________________________________________________________
33.
When you are using technologies, do you remember to clean yourself (shower, brush your teeth, comb your hair, etc.)
__ I don’t remember __ Sometimes I remember __ Yes, I remember
34.
In case of choosing options one and/or two (I don’t remember, sometimes I remember), why do you think you forget?
________________________________________________________________________________________
35.
When you are using technologies, do you remember stopping to do some physical activity?
__I don’t remember __ Sometimes I remember __ Yes, I remember
36.
In case of choosing options one and/or two (I don’t remember, sometimes I remember), why do you think you forget?
________________________________________________________________________________________
37.
When you are using technologies, do you keep the rest hours (sleep the recommended hours)?
__ I don’t remember __ Sometimes I remember __ Yes, I remember
38.
In case of choosing options one and/or two (I don’t remember, sometimes I remember), why do you think you forget?
________________________________________________________________________________________
39.
Rate from 0 to 10 (0 = nothing and 10 = much) to what extent you perform the following activities:
Watching broadcast channels and participating in comments012345678910
Having a broadcast channel or uploading random videos onto the Web012345678910
Participating in or looking at Social Media012345678910
Participating in instant messaging012345678910
Playing online through a video console012345678910
Playing online through other devices012345678910
Watching series and film channels012345678910
Looking for information on the Net012345678910
Listening to music on the Net012345678910
Gambling online012345678910
Shopping online012345678910
Consuming sexual content online012345678910
Other option012345678910
REASONS FOR CONSUMING ICT
40.
Value from 0 to 10 (0 = nothing and 10 = much) each of the following reasons of using technologies:
Meeting new people012345678910
Contacting acquaintances012345678910
Family means of communication012345678910
Setting up groups according to context012345678910
Searching for information012345678910
Searching work offers012345678910
Disconnecting012345678910
Technological update012345678910
Immediate satisfaction012345678910
Personal recognition012345678910
Repeating behaviours012345678910
Social pressure012345678910
Escaping from reality012345678910
Rebelling against authority012345678910
Other option012345678910
41.
Do you use technologies for educational or work purposes? __ Yes __ No
42.
If yes, indicate what you use them for ____________________________________________
DESCRIPTION OF EMOTIONAL MANAGEMENT
43.
Indicate to what extent you identify with each of the following statements (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
Using technology due to a feeling of dissatisfaction with the relationship with my peer group012345678910
Using technology because they help to relate with others012345678910
Using technology due to fear of facing reality012345678910
Using technology due to fear of being excluded from my peer group012345678910
Using technology as a mean of coping with shyness012345678910
Using technology due to fear of not being up to date012345678910
Irritability over control over number of hours of technology use012345678910
Displays of aggression when number of hours of technology use are controlled012345678910
Fear of being without devices012345678910
Using technology due to fear of losing control over what is happening around them012345678910
ICT IN THE FAMILY SETTING
44.
Indicate how your father, tutor, or partner reacts to your time spent using technologies. Specify next to the chosen option(s) who adopts that attitude.
__ He/She tells me to leave it or that it is not good, but in the end, he allows me (permissive): ___________
__ He/she removes me the device or punishes me without it (authoritarian): ___________
__ He/She tries to make me aware of the problem and lets me decide what to do (participatory): ___________
__ He/she tells me nothing, although he/she knows it (passive): ___________
__ He/she talks to me and tries to make me do other things (transformational): ___________
__ He/She does not get involved because he/she knows you have nothing to do (user empowerment): ___________
__He/she does not get involved because he/she does not know how to manage the use of the devices (unknown): ___________
__ He/she does not tell me anything because I get irritated and I get violent (fear): ___________
__ He/she uses it to reward achievement of goals (reward): ___________
In case of living in the family home
45.
Rate the extent to which the use of technologies affects coexistence (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
The user does not speak with his/her father/tutor012345678910
The user fights with his/her father/tutor012345678910
The user is aggressive and rude towards his/her father/tutor012345678910
The user does not speak with his/her mother/tutor012345678910
The user fights with his/her mother/tutor012345678910
The user is aggressive and rude towards his/her mother/tutor012345678910
The user does not speak with his/her sibling(s)012345678910
The user fights with his/her sibling(s)012345678910
The user is aggressive and rude towards his/her sibling(s)012345678910
The user does not participate in family activities012345678910
In case of living with the partner
46.
Rate the extent to which the use of technologies affects coexistence (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
I don’t talk to my partner012345678910
I fight with my partner012345678910
I get aggressive and talk badly to my partner012345678910
I don’t talk to my kids012345678910
I fight with my children012345678910
I become aggressive and speak badly to my children012345678910
The user does not participate in family activities012345678910
In case of living with friends or classmates
47.
Rate the extent to which the use of technologies affects coexistence:
I don’t talk to them012345678910
I fight with them012345678910
I become aggressive and speak badly to them012345678910
I don’t participate in the activities that are organized012345678910
ICT IN THE SOCIAL SETTING
48.
Regards the social sphere, rate to what extent the use of technologies affects your relationships, in each of the following statements (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
The user shows more interest in virtual than in physical relationships012345678910
The user enjoys virtual relations more than in physical relationships012345678910
The user invests more time in virtual relationships than in physical ones012345678910
The user shows their emotions more easily in the virtual world than in the physical world012345678910
The user says what they think more easily in the virtual world than in the physical world012345678910
The user pays more attention to virtual conversations than ones in the physical world012345678910
The user avoids conflicts by relating with others virtually012345678910
The user prefers to relate with others who share their love of technology012345678910
ICT IN THE EDUCATION SETTING
49.
In case of studying, rate to what extent the use of technologies affects your educational environment, in each of the following statements (0 = nothing and 10 = much):
I skip the rules set by the center on the use of technologies012345678910
They have caught my attention012345678910
Grades have gone down012345678910
I find it harder to concentrate on studies012345678910
I find it harder to pay attention in class012345678910
I find it harder to memorise concepts012345678910
I don’t do homework012345678910
I skip class012345678910
I don’t want to study anymore012345678910
I don’t interact with classmates012345678910
ICT IN THE WORK SETTING
50.
In case of having a job, rate to what extent the use of technologies affects your work environment, in each of the following statements (0 = nothing and 10 = much)
Skip work012345678910
Stop doing my job012345678910
Arrive at work late012345678910
Am tired012345678910
Have conflicts with colleagues012345678910
Have conflicts with boss012345678910
Have had a workplace accident012345678910
Doesn’t want to go to work012345678910

References

  1. Oliva, A.; Hidalgo, M.V.; Moreno, C.; Jiménez García, L.; Jiménez Iglesias, A.; Antolín, L.; Ramos, P. Uso y Riesgo de Adicciones a Las Nuevas Tecnologías Entre Adolescentes y Jóvenes Andaluces. 2012. Available online: https://idus.us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/67723/uso_riesgo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 17 January 2020).
  2. Kuss, D.; Van Rooij, A.; Shoter, G.; Griffiths, M.; Van Mheen, D. Internet addiction in adolescents: Prevalence and risk factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 1987–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wittek, C.T.; Finserås, T.R.; Pallesen, S.; Mentzoni, R.A.; Hanss, D.; Griffiths, M.D.; Molde, H. Prevalence and predictors of video game addiction: A study based on a national representative sample of gamers. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2015, 14, 672–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Argumosa-Villar, L.; Boada-Grau, J.; Vigil-Colet, A. Exploratory investigation of theoretical predictors of nomophobia using the Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (MPIQ). J. Adolesc. 2017, 56, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Díaz, V.M.; Gea, E.M.V.; Requena, B.E.S. Uso problemático del smartphone en estudiantes universitarios. Rev. Esp. Drogodepend. 2018, 43, 62–76. [Google Scholar]
  6. Matalí, J.L.; García, S.; Marín, M.; Pardo, M. Adicción a las nuevas tecnologías: Definición, etiología y tratamiento. In Las nuevas tecnologías en niños y adolescentes. In Guía Para Educar Saludablemente en una Sociedad Digital; Roca, G., Ed.; Hospital Sant Joan de Déu: Barcelona, Spain, 2015; pp. 111–121. Available online: http://www.codajic.org/sites/www.codajic.org/files/Las%20nuevas%20tecnolog%C3%ADas%20en%20%20ni%C3%B1os%20y%20adolescentes.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
  7. Durkee, T.; Kaess, M.; Carli, V.; Parzer, P.; Wasserman, C.; Floderus, B.; Apter, A.; Balazs, J.; Barzilay, S.; Bobes, J.; et al. Prevalence of pathological Internet use among adolescents in Europe: Demographic and social factors. Addiction 2012, 107, 2210–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Frangos, C.C.; Frangos, C.C.; Sotiropoulos, I. Problematic internet use among Greek university students: An ordinal logistic regression with risk factors of negative psychological beliefs, pornographic sites, and online games. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dong, G.; Wang, J.; Yang, X.; Zhou, H. Risk personality traits of Internet addiction: A longitudinal study of Internet-addicted Chinese university students. Asia-Pac. Psychiatry Off. J. Pac. Rim Coll. Psychiatr. 2013, 5, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, K.; Lee, H.-K.; Gyeong, H.; Yu, B.; Song, Y.-M.; Kim, D. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Internet Addiction Test among college students. J. Korean Med Sci. 2013, 28, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lam-Figueroa, N.; Contreras-Pulache, H.; Mori-Quispe, E.; Nizama-Valladolid, M.; Gutiérrez, C.; Hinostroza-Camposano, W.; Torrejón Reyes, E.; Hinostroza-Camposano, R.; Coaquira-Condori, E.; Hinostroza-Camposano, W.D. Adicción a Internet: Desarrollo y validación de un instrumento en escolares adolescentes de Lima, Perú. Rev. Peru. Med. Exp. Salud Pública 2011, 28, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Puerta-Cortés, D.X.; Carbonell, X. El modelo de los cinco grandes factores de personalidad y el uso problemático de Internet en jóvenes colombianos. Adicciones 2014, 26, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yao, Z.; Zhong, M. Loneliness, social contacts and Internet addiction: A cross-lagged panel study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fundación Pfizer. La Juventud y Las Redes Sociales, en Internet. 2009. Available online: https://www.fundacionpfizer.org/sites/default/files/pdf/educacion/informe_final_encuesta_juventud_y_redes_sociales.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
  15. OCDE/OECD. Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  16. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Encuesta sobre Equipamiento y Uso de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación en los Hogares. Año 2016. 2016. Available online: http://www.ine.es/prensa/np991.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
  17. Echeburúa, E.; de Corral, P. Adicción a las nuevas tecnologías y a las redes sociales en jóvenes: Un nuevo reto. Adicciones 2010, 22, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Marín, V.; Sampedro, B.E.; Muñoz, J.M. ¿Son adictos a las redes sociales los estudiantes universitarios? Rev. Complut. Educ. 2015, 26, 233–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Suriá, R. Disability in young people, the risk of excessive Internet use? Health Addict. y Drog. 2015, 15, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Muñoz-Miralles, R.; Ortega-González, R.; Batalla-Martínez, C.; López-Morón, M.; Manresa, J.; Torán-Monserrat, P. Acceso y uso de nuevas tecnologías entre los jóvenes de educación secundaria, implicaciones en salud: Estudio JOITIC. Aten. Primaria 2014, 46, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Batalla, C.; Muñoz, R.; Ortega, R. El riesgo de adicción a nuevas tecnologías en la adolescencia: ¿debemos preocuparnos? FMC Form. Med. Continuada Aten. Primaria 2012, 19, 519–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carbonell, X.; Fúster, H.; Chamarro, A.; Oberst, U. Adicción a Internet y móvil: Una revisión de estudios empíricos españoles. Papeles Psicólo. 2012, 33, 82–89. Available online: http://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/2096.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
  23. García del Castillo, J.A. Adicciones tecnológicas: El auge de las redes sociales. Health Addict. 2013, 13, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, L.; Ho, S.S.; Lwin, M.O. A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Med. Soc. 2016, 19, 1194–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carbonell, X.; Chamorro, A.; Griffiths, M.; Oberst, U.; Cladellas, R.; Talarn, A. Problematic Internet and cell phone use in Spanish teenagers and Young studentes. An. Psicol. 2012, 28, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Villa, M.; Suárez, C. Risk factors in the problematic use of Internet and phone in Spanish adolescents. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud 2016, 7, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. López-Fernández, O.; Freixa-Blanxart, M.; Honrubia-Serrano, M.L. The problematic internet entertainment use scale for adolescents: Prevalence of problem internet use in Spanish high school students. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2013, 16, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Observatorio Europeo de las Drogas y las Toxicomanías. El Problema de la Drogodependencia en Europa. Informe Anual 2011; Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bisquerra, R. Metodología de la Investigación Educativa; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hernández, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Metodología de La Investigación; McGraw-Hill Interamericana: México, Mexico, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  31. Teddlie, C.; Tashakkori, A. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaplan, B.; Duchon, D. Combining qualitative and quantitative in onformation Systems rearch: A case study. MIS Q. 1988, 12, 571–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Greene, J.C.; Caracelli, V.J. Making paradigmatic sense of Mixed Methods practice. In Handbook Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research; Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 91–110. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruiz, C. Instrumentos de Investigación Educativa: Procedimientos Para su Diseño y Validación; CIDEG: Barquisimeto, Venezuela, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  35. Escobar, J.; Cuervo, A. Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Av. Med. 2008, 6, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  36. Cooke, R.M.; Goossens, L.L.H.J. TU Delft expert judgment data base. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Skjong, R.; Wentworth, B. Expert Judgement and Risk Perception. 2000. Available online: http://research.dnv.com/skj/Papers/SkjWen.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
  38. Cronbach, J.L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodríguez, G.; Gil, J.; García, E. Metodología de la Investigación Cualitativa; Aljibe: Málaga, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  40. McMillan, J.; Schumacher, S. Investigación Educativa. Una Introducción Conceptual; Pearson Educación: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  42. Peris, M.; Maganto, C.; Garaigordobil, M. Escala de riesgo de adicción-adolescente a las redes sociales e internet: Fiabilidad y validez. Rev. Psicol. Clín. Para Niños Adolesc. 2018, 5, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jiménez, V.; Alvarado, J.M.; Llopis, C. Validación de un cuestionario diseñado para medir frecuencia y amplitud del uso de las TIC. Rev. Electr. Tecnol. Educ. 2017, 61, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Arandas, M.; Fuentes, V.; García-Domingo, M. ¿No sin mi Smartphone?: Elaboración y validación de la Escala de Dependencia y Adicción al Smartphone (EDAS). Ter. Psicol. 2017, 35, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ruiz de Miguel, C. Perfil de uso del teléfono móvil e internet en una muestra de universitarios españoles: ¿usan o abusan? Bordón 2016, 68, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Amendola, S.; Spensieri, V.; Guidetti, V.; Cerutti, R. The relationship between difficulties in emotion regulation and dysfunctional technology use among adolescents. J. Psychopathol 2019, 25, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  47. Alonso, C.; Romero, E. Problematic Technology Use in a clinical sample of children and adolescents. Personality and behavioral problems associated. Actas Esp. Psiquiatr. 2017, 45, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Table 1. Category tree “Perceptions of Proyecto Hombre officers”.
Table 1. Category tree “Perceptions of Proyecto Hombre officers”.
Categoryf%Subcategoryf%
1. Devices used by users of the indicated prevention programme578Video console142
Computer112
Tablet91
Mobile phone152
Television81
2. Actions or tasks carried out using these devices7310Online gambling30
Information searches41
Broadcast channels (YouTube)142
TV and film channels51
Listening to music41
Photos10
Online games91
Phone calls20
Instant messaging122
Social media142
Smart TV20
Video console30
3. Technology use, problematic use and addiction426Technology addiction152
Not determined in the dimensions described10
Use122
Problematic use142
4. Personal dimension indicators8712Addiction294
Not determined in the dimensions described142
Use223
Problematic use223
5. Family dimension indicators709Addiction172
Not classified in the dimensions described162
Use172
Problematic use203
6. Social dimension indicators699Addiction223
Not classified in the dimensions described91
Use182
Problematic use203
7. Education dimension indicators638Addiction152
Not classified in the dimensions described142
Use172
Problematic use172
8. Occupational or work dimension indicators618Addiction182
Not classified in the dimensions described112
Use162
Problematic use162
9. Reasons608Addiction142
Not classified in the dimensions described132
Use203
Problematic use132
10. Technology use profile in prevention programmes547Technology use profile in prevention programmes547
11. Family attitude162Family attitude162
12. Family information required to specify the problem628Family information required to specify the problem628
13. Information required to define the problem284Information required to define the problem284
Total742100Total742100
Table 2. Description of the group of experts.
Table 2. Description of the group of experts.
NumberSexArea of Work
1WomanNational Prevention Committee, Proyecto Hombre Association
2WomanNational Prevention Committee, Proyecto Hombre Association
3WomanNational Prevention Committee, Proyecto Hombre Association
4ManIndicated Prevention Group (Proyecto Hombre Association)
5WomanIndicated Prevention Group (Proyecto Hombre Association)
6ManIndicated Prevention Group (Proyecto Hombre Association)
7ManUniversity of Salamanca
8WomanLibertador Experimental Pedagogical University, Venezuela
9WomanNational Polytechnic Institute, Mexico
10WomanNational Plan on Drugs
Table 3. General evaluation of the instrument designed for users.
Table 3. General evaluation of the instrument designed for users.
Evaluation CriteriaMeanSD
Breadth of content4.130.835
Congruency4.130.641
Pertinence4.140.690
Precision3.880.641
Clarity4.130.354
Table 4. Evaluation of the elements of the instrument designed for users
Table 4. Evaluation of the elements of the instrument designed for users
ElementBreadthCongruencePertinencePrecisionClarity
MeanSDVMeanSDVMeanSDVMeanSDVMeanSDV
13.671.5810.7333.891.2690.9113.891.0540.9113.561.3330.7114.111.0540.800
24.441.0140.8884.670.5000.8664.670.5000.8663.671.3230.8223.891.3640.755
34.440.5270.8884.560.5270.8664.560.5270.9114.670.5000.5774.560.5270.822
44.001.0000.8004.330.7070.8884.330.7070.6883.891.2690.6664.220.9720.800
54.561.0140.9114.331.1180.7334.331.0000.7113.561.5900.7773.891.3640.755
64.221.3020.8444.620.7440.8224.750.4630.8664.251.3890.7774.371.1880.911
73.440.8820.6883.671.3230.8443.441.4240.8662.891.4530.8002.781.5630.888
84.251.1650.8224.251.1650.8444.001.3090.8663.381.7680.7333.501.6040.800
94.001.3230.8004.220.9720.8444.331.0000.8663.891.0540.7113.441.3330.755
104.220.9720.8444.220.8330.8444.330.7070.7773.891.1670.7774.330.8660.800
114.111.2690.8224.221.3020.7554.331.0000.8664.001.0000.7554.440.5270.800
124.220.9720.8444.220.8330.8664.330.7070.8663.671.4140.8444.001.0000.844
133.781.3020.7553.781.3020.8663.891.2690.8223.561.2360.8443.880.9910.844
144.331.0000.8664.331.0000.8444.330.8660.8223.891.4530.8444.001.5000.933
154.331.0000.8664.331.0000.8444.330.8660.8223.891.4530.7334.001.5000.933
164.221.3020.8444.221.3020.8444.111.3640.8223.781.6410.8664.001.5000.822
174.221.3020.8444.221.3020.8444.111.3640.7774.221.3020.9114.221.3020.777
184.221.3020.8444.221.3020.8004.111.3640.8664.221.3020.8004.221.3020.911
194.221.3020.8444.221.3020.8224.111.3640.8224.221.3020.5774.221.3020.844
204.001.3230.8004.001.3230.9663.891.3640.7553.671.6580.7333.671.6580.777
214.330.7070.8664.250.7070.8004.330.7070.7774.500.5350.7114.331.0000.844
224.440.7260.8884.330.8660.7334.111.1670.8004.560.5270.9114.331.0000.555
234.251.0350.8224.131.1260.7553.881.3560.8004.131.3560.9333.751.4880.688
244.001.2250.8003.671.5810.8223.891.4530.9112.891.4530.9113.331.3230.688
254.001.3230.8003.781.3020.9334.001.3230.9333.671.3230.8443.781.3020.866
264.001.3230.8004.430.7870.9334.001.3230.8883.561.4240.7773.671.3230.888
274.670.5000.9334.670.5000.8884.750.4630.9114.560.7260.8004.780.4410.800
284.880.3540.9334.880.3540.8664.880.3540.8444.880.3540.7554.750.4630.755
294.630.5180.8884.630.5180.8444.630.5180.8224.750.4630.8224.630.7440.800
304.560.5270.9114.330.7070.8224.560.5270.8004.221.0930.8004.220.9720.800
314.220.9720.8444.220.9720.8444.220.9720.8443.891.2690.7554.001.2250.800
324.111.0540.8444.111.0540.8444.111.0540.8664.001.3230.9113.781.4810.844
334.220.9720.8444.220.9720.8444.001.2250.9333.781.3940.8884.111.2690.844
344.221.0930.8444.221.0930.8004.221.0930.9114.111.3640.8004.001.3230.844
354.220.9720.9334.220.9720.9334.220.9720.9114.001.2250.7554.111.2690.733
364.221.0930.9114.001.1180.9114.500.7560.9113.781.3020.8003.671.2250.866
374.670.5000.8004.670.5000.8664.670.5000.9224.560.5270.8004.560.7260.866
384.560.7260.8224.560.7260.8884.560.7260.9114.440.7260.8444.440.7260.733
394.130.8350.8444.330.7070.8444.560.5270.8884.000.7070.8444.110.9280.666
404.110.6010.8884.440.5270.8884.560.5270.9333.780.9720.9334.001.0000.755
414.220.8330.8884.220.8330.9114.251.0350.9554.130.9910.9334.000.9260.733
424.440.5270.8884.440.5270.9334.560.7260.8664.001.1180.8224.111.0540.955
434.440.5270.9554.560.7260.9554.441.0140.7114.220.9720.7774.001.0000.911
444.440.5270.8884.670.5000.9554.670.5000.7334.220.8330.9114.330.7070.888
454.780.4410.7774.780.4410.7774.780.4410.9334.670.5000.8444.560.5270.844
464.441.0140.9334.780.4410.9334.331.3230.7774.670.5000.7774.670.5000.800
Table 5. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘description of the personal sphere’.
Table 5. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘description of the personal sphere’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
I feel frustrated when I have limitations with technology2.905.63−2.2030.043Yes
I lie about the actual amount of time I spend on technology1.704.13−2.3620.031Yes
I prefer to interact with others through technology2.403.63−1.4870.157No
I escape reality through the use of technology1.906.13−1.4870.157No
I seek refuge in technology because I feel alone1.303.63−4.5810.001Yes
I can’t control the use of technology in my everyday life2.506.25−3.6760.002Yes
Table 6. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies consumption habits’.
Table 6. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies consumption habits’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
User’s tendency to watch broadcast channels and participate in comments2.005.00−2.1830.049Yes
User’s tendency to have a broadcast channel or to upload random videos onto the Web2.903.00−0.0600.953No
User’s tendency to participate in or look at Social Media6.008.11−1.7670.095No
User’s tendency to participate in instant messaging8.207.440.4590.652No
User’s tendency to play online through a video console3.805.78−1.2770.219No
User’s tendency to play online through other devices3.106.44−2.1490.046Yes
User’s tendency to watch series and film channels5.707.67−1.4220.173No
User’s tendency to look for information on the Net5.807.89−1.6410.119No
User’s tendency to listen to music on the Net7.809.33−1.2910.214No
User’s tendency to gamble online1.002.44−1.3860.203No
User’s tendency to shop online1.503.78−2.1090.062No
User’s tendency to consume sexual content online1.505.11−2.6580.023Yes
Table 7. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Reasons for consuming Information and Communication Technologies’.
Table 7. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Reasons for consuming Information and Communication Technologies’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
Meeting new people4.787.00−1.7850.093No
Contacting acquaintances7.118.89−1.9850.065No
Family means of communication3.227.88−3.0080.008Yes
Setting up groups according to context4.789.11−3.7060.002Yes
Searching for information2.786.78−3.0340.011Yes
Disconnecting2.674.000.3930.393No
Technological update7.117.000.0960.925No
Immediate satisfaction5.564.560.7160.484No
Personal recognition3.006.67−2.7500.014Yes
Repeat behaviours2.225.56−2.3750.030Yes
Social pressure3.443.330.0920.928No
Escaping from reality1.563.00−1.7290.103No
Rebelling against authority2.115.11−2.2520.044Yes
Other option2.673.67−0.9860.339No
Table 8. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Emotional management’.
Table 8. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Emotional management’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
Use of technology due to a feeling of dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations1.222.88−1.9170.092No
Use of technology because they help to relate with others2.337.00−5.4840.000Yes
Use of technology due to fear of facing reality1.332.88−1.8720.097No
Use of technology due to fear of being socially excluded1.112.25−1.5510.163No
Use of technology as a means of coping with shyness1.443.88−2.4770.032Yes
Use of technology due to fear of not being up to date1.003.25−1.8650.046Yes
Irritability over control over number of hours of technology use1.899.00−7.7940.000Yes
Displays of aggression when number of hours of technology use are controlled1.117.00−9.6880.000Yes
Fear of being without devices1.677.25−7.0810.000Yes
Use of technology due to fear of losing control over what is happening around them1.335.0−3.2540.012Yes
Table 9. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the family settings-Effects of the use of technologies on cohabitation’.
Table 9. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the family settings-Effects of the use of technologies on cohabitation’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
The user does not speak with their father/guardian1.253.71−2.3530.052No
The user fights with their father/guardian1.004.86−3.9110.008Yes
The user is aggressive and rude towards their father/guardian1.133.29−2.8530.027Yes
The user does not speak with their mother/guardian1.256.00−2.8030.030Yes
The user fights with their mother/guardian1.757.00−4.0200.002Yes
The user is aggressive and rude towards their mother/guardian1.004.57−2.9460.026Yes
The user does not speak with their sibling(s)1.254.00−1.8320.114No
The user fights with their sibling(s)1.003.43−2.4970.047Yes
The user is aggressive and rude towards their sibling(s)1.003.00−2.1030.080No
The user does not participate in family activities1.254.57−2.2650.062No
Table 10. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the family settings-Effects of technology use on cohabitation’.
Table 10. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the family settings-Effects of technology use on cohabitation’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
The user shows more interest in virtual than physical relationships1.172.60−3.5230.004Yes
The user enjoys virtual relations more than physical relationships1.003.50−2.7480.023Yes
The user invests more time in virtual relationships than physical ones1.005.40−7.3330.000Yes
The user shows their emotions more easily in the virtual world than in the physical world1.426.00−5.1440.000Yes
The user says what they think more easily in the virtual world than in the physical world1.925.90−3.5840.004Yes
The user pays more attention to virtual conversations than ones in the physical world1.254.80−4.2600.002Yes
The user avoids conflicts by relating with others virtually1.173.10−2.5430.031Yes
The user prefers to relate with others who share their love of technology1.506.40−4.4200.001Yes
Table 11. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the family settings-Effects of technology in the education setting’.
Table 11. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the family settings-Effects of technology in the education setting’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
Breaks school rules regarding the use of technology and has on occasion been told off because of this3.576.67−1.9500.075No
Grades have gone down1.005.14−3.0230.023Yes
Finds it harder to concentrate on studies2.577.71−4.1290.001Yes
Finds it hard to pay attention in class1.716.43−3.2000.008Yes
Finds it hard to memorise concepts1.005.86−4.2500.005Yes
Doesn’t do homework1.867.57−6.1240.000Yes
Skips class1.144.29−2.4650.048Yes
Doesn’t want to study anymore1.005.43−3.1750.019Yes
Doesn’t interact with classmates1.294.86−2.9330.013Yes
Table 12. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the work setting’.
Table 12. Discriminatory power of the items in the dimension ‘Information and Communication Technologies in the work setting’.
ItemsLower MeanUpper MeantpDiscriminatory?
Skips work1.001.50−1.6330.178No
Stops doing job/can’t manage to do what they are supposed to1.001.50−1.6330.178No
Arrives at work late1.004.00−1.5000.374No
Is tired1.008.00−1.0000.500No
Has conflicts with colleagues1.004.00−1.5000.374No
Has conflicts with boss(es)1.004.00−1.5000.374No
Has had a workplace accident1.001.50−1.6330.178No
Doesn’t want to go to work1.006.00−1.2500.430No
Table 13. Description of the definitive instrument aimed at programme users.
Table 13. Description of the definitive instrument aimed at programme users.
DimensionDraft 1Draft 2Draft 3
ElementsItemsElementsItemsElementsItems
1. Description of personal sphere914914925
2. Description of family sphere171717171717
3. Availability of digital devices in the home111111
4. ICT consumption habits122212231230
5. Reasons for consuming ICT116318317
6. Description of emotional management110110110
7. ICT in the family setting216430430
8. ICT in the social setting191818
9. ICT in the education setting1819110
10. ICT in the work setting191818
Total461225013850156
Back to TopTop