Table of Contents
Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale
Here in this post, we are sharing the “Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale”. You can read psychometric and Author information. We have thousands of Scales and questionnaires in our collection (See Scales and Questionnaires). You can demand us any scale and questionnaires related to psychology through our community, and we will provide you with a short time. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.
About Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale
Scale Name
Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale
Author Details
Cecilie Schou Andreassen and Torbjørn Torsheim
cecilie.andreassen@psych.uib.no
Translation Availability
Not Sure
Background/Description
The Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS) was developed by constructing and administering a questionnaire to 423 students. The initial pool consisted of 18 items, with three items representing each of the six core elements of addiction: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse. Alongside the BFAS, participants also completed various standardized self-report scales including the Addictive Tendencies Scale, Online Sociability Scale, Facebook Attitude Scale, NEO-FFI, BIS/BAS scales, and Sleep questions.
To create the final scale, the item within each addiction element that had the highest corrected item-total correlation was retained. The scale demonstrated a good factor structure (RMSEA = .046, CFI = .99) and had a coefficient alpha of .83, indicating internal consistency. Additionally, the scale exhibited a test-retest reliability coefficient of .82 over a 3-week period.
The scores obtained from the BFAS were found to align with scores from other scales measuring Facebook activity. Furthermore, these scores showed positive associations with Neuroticism and Extraversion, while displaying negative associations with Conscientiousness. High scores on the BFAS were linked to delayed bedtimes and waking times.
Administration, Scoring and Interpretation
- Explain to the person that the BFAS is a short questionnaire that measures how much they rely on Facebook.
- Ask the person to read each item carefully and rate it on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “very rarely” and 5 being “very often.”
- Remind the person to answer each item honestly and as accurately as possible.
- Once the person has completed the questionnaire, thank them for their time.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure. The BFAS has good internal consistency, meaning that the items on the scale are all measuring the same construct. The BFAS has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83, which is considered to be good.
The BFAS has also been shown to have good test-retest reliability, meaning that the scores on the scale are consistent over time. In one study, the BFAS had a test-retest reliability of 0.82 over a one-week period.
Validity refers to the extent to which a measure measures what it is supposed to measure. The BFAS has good construct validity, meaning that it measures the construct of Facebook addiction. The BFAS has been shown to correlate positively with other measures of problematic Facebook use, such as the Problematic Internet Use Scale (PIUS) and the Internet Addiction Test (IAT).
The BFAS has also been shown to have good predictive validity, meaning that it can predict problematic Facebook use in the future. In one study, the BFAS was able to predict problematic Facebook use six months later with an accuracy of 70%.
Available Versions
18-Items
Reference
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. N. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501-517.
Important Link
Scale File:
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale?
A self-report scale that assesses the severity of problematic Facebook use.
How is the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale scored?
Participants rate each item on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often).
What are the psychometric properties of the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale?
The BFAS has good reliability and validity. It has been shown to be reliable in terms of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. It has also been shown to be valid in terms of construct validity and predictive validity.
Disclaimer
Please note that Psychology Roots does not have the right to grant permission for the use of any psychological scales or assessments listed on its website. To use any scale or assessment, you must obtain permission directly from the author or translator of the tool. Psychology Roots provides information about various tools and their administration procedures, but it is your responsibility to obtain proper permissions before using any scale or assessment. If you need further information about an author’s contact details, please submit a query to the Psychology Roots team.
Help Us Improve This Article
Have you discovered an inaccuracy? We put out great effort to give accurate and scientifically trustworthy information to our readers. Please notify us if you discover any typographical or grammatical errors.
Make a comment. We acknowledge and appreciate your efforts.
If you have any scale or any material related to psychology kindly share it with us at psychologyroots@gmail.com. We help others on behalf of you.
