Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A short questionnaire covering important experiences and perceptions of social media use among adolescents. Development and association with symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Jens Christoffer Skogen; Turi Reiten Finserås; Børge Sivertsen; Ian Colman; Amanda Iselin Olesen Andersen; Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland

doi:10.12688/f1000research.161622.3

Home Browse Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A short questionnaire covering important experiences and perceptions of social media use among adolescents. Development and association with symptoms of depression and anxiety.

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved]

Previously titled: Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A short questionnaire covering important aspects of social media use among adolescents. Development and association with symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Jens Christoffer Skogen ^1-3, Turi Reiten Finserås¹, Børge Sivertsen^1,4, Ian Colman^5,6, Amanda Iselin Olesen Andersen¹, Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland^1,2

Jens Christoffer Skogen ^1-3, Turi Reiten Finserås¹, [...] Børge Sivertsen^1,4, Ian Colman^5,6, Amanda Iselin Olesen Andersen¹, Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland^1,2

PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway
² Centre for Evaluation of Public Health Measures, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
³ Center for alcohol and drug research (KORFOR), Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
⁴ Department of Research and Innovation, Helse Fonna HF, Haugesund, Rogaland, Norway
⁵ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
⁶ Centre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

Jens Christoffer Skogen
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Turi Reiten Finserås
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Børge Sivertsen
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Ian Colman
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Amanda Iselin Olesen Andersen
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Social Psychology gateway.

Abstract

Background

There is a need to go beyond mere measures of time used on social media. Existing tools inadequately capture the multidimensional nature of social media use, leaving a gap for concise yet comprehensive assessment tools.

Aims

This study aimed to develop a short questionnaire addressing three critical dimensions of perceptions and experiences of social media use: self-presentation, negative experiences, and problematic use. The association between these dimensions and symptoms of anxiety and depression was also investigated.

Methods

This study uses two independent datasets of adolescents aged 16+ years in Norway. Using Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) analyses, a pool of 31 social media items was analyzed to investigate factor structure and associations with symptoms of anxiety and depression. For model development, the “LifeOnSoMe”-study was employed (>3,500 participants), and data from a pilot study (~500 participants) was used for external validation.

Results

Based on ACO-analyses, a 20-item six-factor model was identified, encompassing social comparison and self-presentation (five items), and three items for each of the following domains: negative experiences (Negative acts and Unwanted attention from others) and problematic use (Subjective overuse, Social obligations, and Source of concern). Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated very good to excellent fit in both datasets, and consistent associations between the six different domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Discussion

The proposed 20-item questionnaire captures six important aspects of adolescent’s experiences and perception of social media use, and it may serve as a meaningful tool for assessing the potential association between social media use and mental health and related outcomes.

Keywords

social media, adolescence, mental health, questionnaire

Corresponding author: Jens Christoffer Skogen

Competing interests: Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc.

Grant information: The work of GJH was supported by the Dam Foundation [grant number 2021/FO347287], while the work of TRF, AIOA and JCS was supported by The Research Council of Norway [grant number 319845]. The work of IC was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centers of Excellence funding scheme, grant number 262700. The funding sources were not involved in the study design, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the writing of the manuscript.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2025 Skogen JC et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Skogen JC, Finserås TR, Sivertsen B et al. Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A short questionnaire covering important experiences and perceptions of social media use among adolescents. Development and association with symptoms of depression and anxiety. [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:228 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.3) First published: 21 Feb 2025, 14:228 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.1) Latest published: 01 Sep 2025, 14:228 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

The revised version include important edits to clarify the content of the Be-SMEE questionnaire, as well as highlighting some of the limitations in previous research and in the present paper as well. It also includes some additional references which help to shed light on the complexities of the research field. Lastly, the revised version also includes some minors edits to language.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Vincent Paquin
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Christopher Ferguson

Introduction

In the last 15 years, a large volume of research has been focused on the potential link between social media use and mental health outcomes.^1–4 Initially, the primary focus was on the amount of time used on social media,^1,5,6 but currently a more fine-grained and purposeful focus has been advocated.^4,7 This reflects the growing awareness that the total time spent on social media is a crude and imprecise measure for a host of different exposures and interactions.^1,8–10 Specifically, time spent on social media has been described as an overly simplistic metric, analogous to measuring ‘time spent’ at school or home, when assessing risk factors for mental health problems.¹⁰ Importantly, several reviews of the literature have concluded that ‘time spent’ is a poor predictor for mental health outcomes.^2,11,12 Whether social media influences mental health likely depends on several interrelated factors, including platform affordances, content, individual characteristics, and broader contextual determinants,^1,4,9 although it is possible even these factors may prove trivial or null. In line with the notion that one should go beyond ‘time spent’, our previous research has focused on more specific aspects of social media use.^13–18 In general, we have focused on three superordinate domains in relation to social media use: self-presentation and social comparison,^14,18 negative experiences,^16,17,19 and problematic use.¹³ These domains are frequently highlighted in the literature as important factors when investigating the potential negative impact of social media use on mental health.^1,9,20–24 Previous research has shown that these domains are more consistently related to mental health and well-being among adolescents, for both boys and girls.^13–18^,²⁵^–²⁷ More negative experiences on social media have for instance been reported to be related to more symptoms of anxiety and depression, and this association with mental health is also reported for higher levels of problematic social media use and aspects of self-presentation and social comparison.²⁸ These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings.^29–31 Likewise, the conceptualisation and understanding of social comparison as factor in relation to mental health is not straightforward³² and needs to be carefully considered in relation to social media use. A recent scoping review, for instance, highlighted among other things the lack of research into downward comparison vis-à-vis social media use and mental health.³³

In summary, although these domains seem to be more consistently associated with mental health outcomes, even here the literature reports mixed findings – with some studies showing only small associations or null results. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a comparatively promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.^1,34–36

In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years.^28,37 These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media.^28,37–40 The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.

Given the complexity in gauging what social media use entails,^7,15 a specific potential challenge is to be able to capture several different domains succinctly and without lengthy questionnaires. This challenge is not unique to social media use but is a familiar phenomenon in many areas of research.^41,42 In surveys, there is always a pressure on the length of the survey, and care is given to ensure that the respondents are not overloaded or are presented with redundant or irrelevant items. In a recent paper by Twivy and colleagues, they used Ant Colony Optimization to develop a 15-item short-form social media scale for depression in adolescence covering five different domains, “hostility from others”, “hostility towards others”, “social comparison”, “passing time” and “seeking support”.²⁴ The areas covered were all associated with adolescent depression and well-being, but it did not specifically include other potentially important domains such as problematic social media use or unwanted attention from others. To the best of our knowledge, no existing questionnaires on social media use simultaneously address the domains outlined below. The present study aimed to leverage items used previously to establish a concise questionnaire covering the following domains of experiences and perceptions of social media use: Self-presentation and social comparison (7 items), Negative experiences (including subdomains: negative acts and exclusion (5 items) and unwanted attention from others (3 items)), problematic social media use (including subdomains: Subjective overuse (5 items), Social obligations (8 items), Source of concern (3 items)).

In previous publications these domains have been covered by a total of 31 items. Our aim in this paper was to reduce this number substantially using data from two large samples of Norwegian adolescents, while being able to retain the different domains listed above. After item-reduction, we aimed to conduct an initial exploratory analysis of the psychological correlates of the scale, specifically describing associations between the scale domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents.

Methods

This study is based on two independent data sources that utilized similar methodology and survey designs. The main data source is the “LifeOnSoMe”-study, which included more than 3,500 adolescents (aged 16+ years) from Bergen Municipality in Norway. The study covered a range of factors potentially associated with mental health and well-being. Importantly, it also contained a separate section specifically investigating several different aspects of social media use (for more information see below). The second data source originates from the pilot study preceding the “LifeOnSoMe”-study which was completed in Alver Municipality, Norway, and included around 500 adolescents (aged 16+ years). Although there are some slight discrepancies in the survey content across these two data sources, the recruitment procedure and main measure were identical. Importantly, the measures used in the present study are identical across the two surveys. This similarity allows for direct comparison between them. Both surveys were in Norwegian, and age and gender were registered based on self-report. The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being. Further information about both data sources, as well as their contextual information, can be found in previous publications.^14,16,18

Measures of social media use

In a specific section of the survey, adolescents answered statements about their use, beliefs, perceptions, experiences, and attitudes toward social media (for more detailed information, see supplemental information in Skogen et al. 2025⁴³). The items were based on findings from focus group interviews of adolescents (27 adolescents across five groups; for more information, see for instance¹⁵). All the statements had five response options, and for the present study, the following domains were of interest (original number of items in parentheses):

Social comparison and self-presentation (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, 7 items), Negative acts and exclusion (e.g. “Others say/post bad things about me on social media”, 5 items), Unwanted attention from others (e.g. “I receive unwanted nude photos or sexualized content from others”, 3 items), Subjective overuse (e.g. “I spend too much time on social media”, 5 items), Social obligations (e.g. “I feel that I must respond to all messages, “streaks” and similar things I receive”, 8 items), and Source of concern (e.g. “There is so much happening on social media that I often feel overwhelmed”, 3 items). The specific statements and response options are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Different experiences and perceptions of social media use.

Original statements and response options.

Question: To what extent are the following statements true for you? (Answer options: Not at all, A little, Somewhat/partly, A lot, Very much)
Social comparison and self-presentation	1. I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media
	2. It is important for me to get many likes and/or comments on what I post on social media
	3. It is important for me to have many followers on social media
	4. I delete what I post on social media if it does not get enough likes or comments
	5. I retouch photos of myself to look better before posting them on social media
	6. What others post (photos/status updates/stories) makes me feel less content with myself and my own life
	7. The response I get for what I post (photos/status updates/stories) impacts how I feel
Subjective overuse	1. Social media takes away focus from more important things
	2. I am addicted to social media
	3. My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media
	4. I spend too much time on social media
	5. I want to reduce the amount of time I spend on social media
Social obligations	1. I fear I might miss out on something if I am not on social media
	2. Social media gives me a sense of control or overview of what is going on
	3. I feel that I must like and/or comment on what friends post on social media
	4. I feel that I must respond to all messages, "streaks" and similar things I receive
	5. If I do not respond, like or comment, then it can have negative consequences
	6. If my friends do not like or comment on what I post on social media, I start thinking something is wrong
	7. If I do not participate on social media, I will fall behind
	8. I follow closely what my friends/girlfriend/boyfriend/family does through social media (for example stories, Snap map …)
Source of concern	1. I wish we could learn more about how social media affects us
	2. There is so much happening on social media that I often feel overwhelmed
	3. Sometimes I feel like I am being monitored on social media (because what I do/where I am/who I am with is visible)
Question: How often does the following happen/do you do the following: (Answer options: Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Very often)
Unwanted attention from others	1. I get contacted/get unwanted attention from strangers on social media
	2. I receive nude photos or sexualized content from others without asking for it
	3. I am asked to send nude photos or sexualized content of myself to others
Negative acts and exclusion	1. Others share photos/videos of me against my will
	2. I get negative/rude comments on what I post
	3. I receive unpleasant or hurtful messages through social media
	4. Others say/post bad things about me on social media
	5. I feel excluded from groups/group chats on social media

Symptoms of anxiety

Symptoms of anxiety were assessed using the General Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) questionnaire.⁴⁴ The GAD-7 consists of seven questions about general anxiety symptoms, scored from 1 (“not at all”) to 4 (“almost every day”). It can be used as a continuous measure (total score ranging from 0 to 28) or as a dichotomous variable with a cut-off score of 10 to define case-level anxiety. For this study, the GAD-7 was used as a continuous variable.

Symptoms of depression

Symptoms of depression were measured using the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ⁴⁵). The SMFQ includes thirteen statements about depressive symptoms, with response options of 0 (“not true”), 1 (“sometimes true”), and 2 (“true”). It can be used as a continuous measure (total score ranging from 0 to 26) or as a dichotomous variable with a cut-off at the 90^th percentile to define case-level depression. For this study, the SMFQ was used as a continuous variable.

Statistical analyses

The “LifeOnSoMe”-study proper was designated as the model development dataset, while the pilot study data was designated as the external validation sample. First, descriptive statistics of self-reported age and gender, as well as mental health variables, were presented across the model development and the external validation sample. Frequencies and proportions were estimated for age and gender, while the median and interquartile range were estimated for symptoms of depression and anxiety. Potential differences between the two datasets were estimated using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests for age and gender and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for the mental health variables. Next, item reduction was done using Ant Colony Optimization (ACO). ACO is a metaheuristic algorithm inspired by ants’ foraging behaviour, in this case applied to factor analysis for optimizing measurement scales.⁴⁶ In our context, artificial ants construct solutions by selecting items, guided by pheromone trails that represent the quality of previous solutions.^47–49 The algorithm iteratively updates these trails, reinforcing paths leading to psychometrically sound scales and factor structure.⁴⁶ ACO has previously been successfully used to develop short scales, such as for assessing personality⁴⁸ and the beforementioned short social media scale for depression.²⁴ ACO-analysis was performed using the model development data set. Model fit and factor loadings for the suggested model were estimated across both datasets using confirmatory factor analysis with the Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator. DWLS was employed to handle the ordinally scaled items included, providing more accurate parameter estimates and standard errors. Model fit was assessed using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI, good fit: ≥ 0.95), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, good fit: ≥ 0.95), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, good fit ≤ 0.06) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, good fit ≤ 0.08). Configural and scalar measurement invariance⁵⁰ were also tested across the two datasets, as well as across gender and age (see Table 5). As per recommendations for ordinal indicators, we bypassed metric invariance testing and directly assessed scalar invariance by simultaneously constraining factor loadings and thresholds.^51,52 This approach is more appropriate and parsimonious for ordinal data, as both loadings and thresholds jointly determine response probabilities. For measurement invariance, we jointly considered ΔCFI ≤ -0.01 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 as evidence of invariance across groups. Finally, Bayesian linear regression models⁵³ adjusted for age and gender were separately estimated between each of the suggested domains (summed average score for each domain) and symptoms of anxiety and depression as dependent variables across both data sets. The following estimates were obtained from the regression models; the median regression coefficient and the corresponding 95% credible interval, and the probability of direction (the chance the observed association is positive or negative). For the regression models, the dependent variables were standardised (Z-scored; mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1) in each data set. This means that the median posterior estimate represents the average change in the dependent variable expressed as standard deviation for each unit increase in the original scale of the independent variable (all with five levels). Additionally, the Bayes factor and the error percentage were estimated when comparing an age- and gender-only model (baseline) versus a model that also included the social media domains. Bayes factor estimates the relative evidence for one statistical model over another by comparing their predictive performance.⁵⁴ Potential differences in regression estimates across the two datasets were investigated in moderation analyses in a combined dataset with a grouping variable term: dependent variable×dataset. Moderation by dataset was considered present when the credible interval of the interaction term did not cross zero. For the development dataset, a total of 3,285 participants had valid responses for all variables of interest and were included in the analytical sample. In comparison, the external validation dataset included 509 participants with valid responses. Missing data was handled by case-wise deletion, with a maximum of 7.7% of the total number of participants excluded in any of the analyses. All analyses were done using R Studio.⁵⁵ ACO-analyses were performed using the ‘ShortForm’-package,⁵⁶ while Bayesian linear regression models were computed using ‘rstanarm’⁵⁷ and Bayes factor estimates were derived from the ‘BayesFactor’-package.⁵⁸ Confirmatory factor analyses were done using the ‘lavaan’-package.⁵⁹ Tables were produced using the packages ‘gtsummary’⁶⁰ and ‘flextable’.⁶¹

Results

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for the model development and the external validation sample. There were some age and gender differences between the two samples, with a slightly higher age (mean age 17.3 vs 17.1 years, p<0.001) and a higher proportion of girls (56% vs 42%, p<0.001) in the former sample compared to the latter. There were no differences in terms of symptoms of anxiety and depression (p-values >0.05). Based on results from the ACO approach, the best fitting model was a 20-item, six-factor model (see Table 3) which included five items for self-presentation, and three items for the rest of the domains (Negative acts, Unwanted attention from others, Subjective overuse, Social obligations, and Source of concern). This constituted a 35% reduction of items compared to the original number of items. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis indicated very good to excellent model fit and satisfactory factor loadings in both samples (see Table 3 and Table 4). Model fit in the model development dataset was CFI: 0.968, TLI: 0.960, RMSEA: 0.058 and SRMR: 0.039, compared to CFI: 0.978, TLI: 0.973, RMSEA: 0.056 and SRMR: 0.055 in the external validation dataset. Measurement invariance testing indicated that the suggested model fits across the age and gender, as well across the two samples (see Table 5). Overall, factor loadings were consistent across both samples, with all standardized factor loadings exceeding 0.5.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of demographic and mental health variables across method development and external validation sample.

Variables	Method development N = 3,285¹	External validation N = 509¹	p-value²
Age			<0.001
16	600 (18%)	163 (34%)
17	1,573 (48%)	178 (37%)
18	901 (27%)	88 (18%)
19+	211 (6.4%)	48 (10%)
Gender			<0.001
Boys	1,433 (44%)	296 (58%)
Girls	1,852 (56%)	213 (42%)
SMFQ - depression	5 (2, 10)	5 (2, 10)	0.2
GAD - anxiety	5.0 (2.0, 8.0)	5.0 (2.0, 8.0)	0.6

1 n (%); Median (Q1, Q3).

2 Pearson's Chi-squared test; Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Table 3. Factor loadings across method development and external validation sample.

Short version.

Factor	Item	Model development		External validation
Factor	Item	Std. Loading	p-value	Std. Loading	p-value
Self-presentation and social comparison	1. I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media	0.69	<0.001	0.68	<0.001
	2. I delete what I post on social media if it does not get enough likes or comments	0.73	<0.001	0.74	<0.001
	3. I retouch photos of myself to look better before posting them on social media	0.60	<0.001	0.60	<0.001
	4. What others post (photos/status updates/stories) makes me feel less content with myself and my own life	0.79	<0.001	0.80	<0.001
	5. The response I get for what I post (photos/status updates/stories) is impacts how I feel	0.85	<0.001	0.89	<0.001
Negative acts	6. Others say/post bad things about me on social media	0.89	<0.001	0.95	<0.001
	7. I get negative/rude comments on what I post	0.93	<0.001	0.96	<0.001
	8. I receive unpleasant or hurtful messages through social media	0.92	<0.001	0.90	<0.001
Unwanted attention	9. I receive unwanted nude photos or sexualized content from others	0.87	<0.001	0.82	<0.001
	10. I am asked to send nude photos or sexualized content of myself to others	0.92	<0.001	0.93	<0.001
	11. I get contacted/get unwanted attention from strangers on social media	0.80	<0.001	0.81	<0.001
Subjective overuse	12. I want to reduce the amount of time I spend on social media	0.77	<0.001	0.78	<0.001
	13. I spend too much time on social media	0.86	<0.001	0.88	<0.001
	14. My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media	0.69	<0.001	0.71	<0.001
Social obligations	15. If my friends do not like or comment on what I post on social media, I start thinking something is wrong	0.87	<0.001	0.90	<0.001
	16. feel that I must respond to all messages, "streaks" and similar things I receive	0.54	<0.001	0.63	<0.001
	17. If I do not respond, like or comment, then it can have negative consequences	0.76	<0.001	0.80	<0.001
Source of concern	18. There is so much happening on social media that I often feel overwhelmed	0.81	<0.001	0.76	<0.001
	19. Sometimes I feel like I am being monitored on social media (because what I do/where I am/who I am with, is visible)	0.67	<0.001	0.71	<0.001
	20. I wish we could learn more about how social media affects us	0.56	<0.001	0.58	<0.001

Table 4. Model fit indices across method development and external validation sample.

Measure	Values (Model development)	Values (External validation)
Chi-square	1754.104	379.918
Degrees of freedom	155.000	155.000
CFI	0.968	0.978
TLI	0.960	0.973
RMSEA	0.058	0.056
SRMR	0.039	0.055

Table 5. Model fit indices for measurement invariance testing.

Model	CFI	RMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Across model development and external validation
Configural	0.971	0.056	-	-
Scalar	0.974	0.048	0.003	-0.008
Across gender
Configural	0.962	0.059	-	-
Scalar	0.960	0.055	-0.002	-0.004
Across age groups
Configural	0.970	0.058	-	-
Scalar	0.971	0.051	0.001	-0.007

With respect to symptoms of anxiety and depression (see Table 6), all the suggested factors were reliably and positively associated with increased symptoms across the two samples. For all results, the probability of direction strongly supported a positive association. Furthermore, the Bayes factor provided strong-to-extreme evidence favoring a model including domains of social media use experiences and perceptions over an age- and gender-only model.⁵⁴ In general, point estimates were similar across the two datasets. However, there was one notable exception: the association between subjective overuse and symptoms of depression was slightly stronger in the external validation dataset. In terms of effect size, the associations between each domain and symptoms of anxiety or depression were generally small-to-moderate in magnitude. Specifically, the domains of self-presentation and negative acts showed the strongest associations, with median effect sizes between 0.36 and 0.47 standard deviations. The other domains—unwanted attention, social obligations, and source of concern—showed small effects (median effect sizes: 0.19 to 0.31 SD), while subjective overuse showed very small effects (median effect sizes: 0.11 to 0.22 SD). The full questionnaire accounted for approximately one-quarter (26-28%) of the variability in symptoms of depression and anxiety in both datasets.

Table 6. Bayesian linear regression models across model development and external validation sample.

Standardised dependent variables. Age- and gender-adjusted.

		Model development					External validation
Dependent variable	Parameter	Median posterior estimate	95% CI	Probability of direction	Bayes factor	Error percentage	Median posterior estimate	95% CI	Probability of direction	Bayes factor	Error percentage
Symptoms of anxiety (GAD)	Self-presentation	0.40	(0.36, 0.45)	100	>100	0.01	0.42	(0.31, 0.55)	100	>100	0.01
	Negative acts	0.36	(0.31, 0.42)	100	>100	0.00	0.34	(0.21, 0.49)	100	>100	0.01
	Unwanted attention	0.28	(0.24, 0.32)	100	>100	0.00	0.28	(0.18, 0.39)	100	>100	0.00
	Subjective overuse	0.12	(0.08, 0.15)	100	>100	0.01	0.18	(0.09, 0.27)	100	>30, ≤100	0.00
	Social obligations	0.19	(0.15, 0.23)	100	>100	0.00	0.19	(0.10, 0.27)	100	>100	0.00
	Source of concern	0.26	(0.22, 0.29)	100	>100	0.00	0.31	(0.20, 0.41)	100	>100	0.00
Symptoms of depression (SMFQ)	Self-presentation	0.43	(0.39, 0.48)	100	>100	0.01	0.47	(0.36, 0.58)	100	>100	0.01
	Negative acts	0.44	(0.38, 0.49)	100	>100	0.00	0.41	(0.28, 0.54)	100	>100	0.00
	Unwanted attention	0.29	(0.25, 0.33)	100	>100	0.00	0.27	(0.17, 0.37)	100	>100	0.00
	Subjective overuse	0.11	(0.07, 0.14)	100	>100	0.01	0.22	(0.13, 0.31)	100	>100	0.00
	Social obligations	0.21	(0.18, 0.25)	100	>100	0.00	0.22	(0.13, 0.30)	100	>100	0.00
	Source of concern	0.22	(0.18, 0.26)	100	>100	0.00	0.31	(0.21, 0.41)	100	>100	0.00

Discussion

Our analyses identified a concise 20-item questionnaire encompassing six domains covering experiences and perceptions of social media use. Model fit indices and measures of reliability consistently demonstrated very good to excellent fit between the suggested model and the data in both datasets. Furthermore, all six domains were consistently associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets. The strongest associations were seen for self-presentation and negative acts, with moderate effect sizes, while the other domains show small to very small effects, especially for ‘subjective overuse’. In general, these findings align with previous studies using the original longer versions of the suggested domains within the same datasets.^13–18 The fact that results from the method development dataset were consistently confirmed in the dataset used for external validation indicates that the proposed questionnaire is robust and relevant across cohorts. This consistency was also reiterated when testing for measurement invariance across the two datasets. As all the items are derived from focus group interviews with adolescents, it is likely that they are experientially relevant when considering social media and potential impact.⁶²

Furthermore, the proposed 20-item questionnaire addresses several limitations inherent in previous instruments, such as platform-dependency or conceptual overlap.⁶³ Specifically, in relation to problematic social media use, previous scales have been criticized for also including symptoms of mental health problems, thus inflating the apparent relationship between the two constructs.⁶⁴ The questionnaire also includes more common negative experiences which have gained increasing interest lately.²² Overall, our initial findings suggest that the proposed questionnaire may be a useful and succinct tool for assessing critical aspects of adolescent’s experiences and perceptions of social media use.

Although these are preliminary findings, the questionnaire may serve as a reliable and efficient tool for assessing different experiences and perceptions of social media use and its associations with mental health among adolescents. It could support research in the exploration of how different aspects of social media use relate to mental health outcomes and to monitor trends in social media use.

By exploring the associations between specific domains of experiences and perceptions of social media use and mental health outcomes, researchers can gain deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying these relationships.

Strengths and limitations

The present study has several notable strengths. Firstly, by using the ACO approach to reduce the number of items, we identified a relatively short questionnaire that effectively captures six different domains related to experiences and perceptions of social media use.^65,66 Secondly, we leveraged two independent yet comparable datasets, enabling robust external validation of the questionnaire in terms of both factor structure and its relationship with symptoms of anxiety and depression. This also meant that we were able to do measurement invariance testing across the two datasets. Although the practical relevance of (especially higher order) measurement non-invariance has been debated,^50,67,68 it is a strength that we were able to test for configural and scalar invariance in two independent samples. It is also a strength in itself that we were able to investigate the convergent validity and relevance of the suggested domains against frequently used and validated scales focusing on symptoms of depression and anxiety.^44,45 Thirdly, the items included in the suggested questionnaire are less platform-dependent and likely more robust to changes in functionality and mere usage patterns on social media. This is especially important as social media is often thought of as a moving target in research,⁶⁹ and we believe that the suggested items are less prone to being outdated by changes to the underlying technology or user interface.

However, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, although the suggested questionnaire covers potentially important domains related to experiences and perceptions of social media use, it does not encompass all relevant dimensions.^9,24,28,37 Social media use and aspects of social media is complex and multidimensional, and depending on the focus of interest, other domains may be more or less important to assess than those included here. Social media instruments have generally been developed to assess specific dimensions within a much broader psychological and behavioural construct.^28,37 Our proposed questionnaire primarily captures risk-related aspects, leaving out positive dimensions of social media use that might buffer against mental health problems, or factors that may potentially increase well-being.^1,26 However, we believe that the suggested questionnaire covers six domains that are likely to play a crucial role in our understanding of how social media use may be a health determinant, especially for factors related to mental health and well-being. Secondly, the study is based on cross-sectional data, which limits our ability to infer causality or temporality relationships. Future research should investigate changes over time for the suggested domains and longitudinal associations with for instance mental health. Thirdly, as both datasets rely on data collected from upper secondary schools, the age-range is quite limited (range 16-21 years). Future research should investigate how well the suggested questionnaire performs in both older and younger cohorts. Fourthly, the data collection relies on self-report and is based on a single informant (the adolescents). This may lead to single-responder bias, increasing the risk that observed associations reflect individual reporting tendencies rather than true relationships. It also makes our data collection vulnerable to common method bias which may have inflated or distorted observed associations between variables. Relatedly, demand characteristics may also be a concern. While the explicit description of the study’s aims in the invitation letter introduces the potential for demand characteristics—where participants may tailor their responses to align with perceived expectations—framing the project as an exploration of both positive and negative aspects of social media use likely reduced this specific bias. By signalling an openness to a full spectrum of experiences, rather than reinforcing the perhaps more common negative narrative, the invitation may have encouraged more balanced and authentic responses from participants, thereby mitigating some of the limitations typically associated with demand characteristics. Fifthly, although the observed associations between the domains and mental health problems appear largely consistent, the effect sizes are relatively modest, especially for ‘subjective overuse’. It is possible that the observed associations reflect broader indicators of mental distress rather than any effects uniquely attributable to social media use. Moreover, adolescent’s perceptions of social media experiences may not always align with objective experiences, especially given known limitations in adolescent self-report accuracy (see for instance Johannes et al. (2021)⁷⁰). Still, subjective interpretations can be meaningful in their own right by offering insight into how individuals process and respond to their digital environments. Lastly, our study population was geographically restricted to Vestland County, Norway, and both datasets were collected in a Norwegian context. Future research should assess the questionnaire’s relevance, psychometric properties, and cultural adaptability in diverse populations and linguistic contexts.

Conclusions

There is a need for tools that go beyond measuring mere time spent on social media. As far as we know, there is a paucity in comprehensive yet succinct assessment tools for different aspects of social media use. This study presents a proposed 20-item questionnaire that captures six important aspects of experiences and perceptions of social media use. Our findings suggest that the proposed questionnaire is a useful tool for assessing associations between experiences and perceptions of social media use and mental health and related outcomes. We believe it represents a meaningful contribution to the research field. Future research should explore the questionnaires utility in other contexts, and populations, as well as its applicability to outcomes beyond those investigated here.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization, JCS and GJH; methodology, JCS, GJH and TRF; formal analysis, JCS; investigation, GJH, TRF, AIOA and JCS; writing—original draft preparation, JCS; writing—review and editing, GJH, TRF, BS, IC, AIOA, and JCS; project administration, JCS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The data collections were approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (REK) in Norway (reference number REK #65611, date of approval 16.12.2019) and was conducted in compliance with the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration. All participants were provided with information about the study’s overall objectives, both digitally and through communication with their teacher, and they provided electronic informed consent when participating. It was also made clear that participants had the option to withdraw from the study at any time. Additionally, all individuals invited to participate were at least 16 years old, granting them the legal capacity to independently provide consent; however, parents or guardians were also informed about the study.

Compliance with reporting standards

This study adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting of observational research.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available, as they contain sensitive information, and the ethical approval of the study and GDPR preclude public access to these datasets. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to JCS, jens.christoffer.skogen@fhi.no. Access to data can be given under the terms of the ethical approval and in accordance with GDPR. Any individual requesting access to the data must be formally added as a member of the project group, as per the ethical approval. This is done through application from the project leader. Access will only be granted if the request aligns with the terms of the ethical approval, complies with GDPR, and includes a detailed description of the intended use of the data.

Acknowledgements

We thank the pupils who took part in the survey and are grateful for the collaboration and support provided by Alver Municipality, Bergen municipality and Vestland County Council. A very special thanks go to the resource group for their valuable contributions and discussions pertaining to the development of focus group interviews and the questionnaire, as well as ongoing input along the way.

References

1. Schønning V, et al.: Social Media Use and Mental Health and Well-Being Among Adolescents - A Scoping Review. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11: 1949. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Valkenburg PM, Meier A, Beyens I: Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022; 44: 58–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Hall JA: Ten Myths About the Effect of Social Media Use on Well-Being. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024; 26: e59585. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Sala A, Porcaro L, Gómez E: Social media use and adolescents’ mental health and well-being: An umbrella review. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2024; 14: 100404. Publisher Full Text
5. Orben A: Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2020; 55(4): 407–414. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Kaye K, et al.: The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17(10): 3661. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Hickman Dunne J, et al.: Identifying relevant experiences to the measurement of social media experience via focus groups with young people: A registered report. PsyArXiv Preprints; 2023.
8. Coyne SM, et al.: Does time spent using social media impact mental health?: An eight year longitudinal study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020; 104: 106160. Publisher Full Text
9. Orben A, et al.: Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2024; 3(6): 407–423. Publisher Full Text
10. Keyes KM, Platt JM: Annual Research Review: Sex, gender, and internalizing conditions among adolescents in the 21st century - trends, causes, consequences. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 2024; 65(4): 384–407. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Ferguson CJ, et al.: There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems: Findings from a meta-analysis. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pr. 2025; 56(1): 73–83. Publisher Full Text
12. Yang Q, Feng Y: Relationships between social networking sites use and subjective well-being--- a meta-analysis and meta-analytic structural equation model. Heliyon. 2024; 10(12): e32463. Publisher Full Text
13. Finserås TR, et al.: Reexploring Problematic Social Media Use and Its Relationship with Adolescent Mental Health. Findings from the “LifeOnSoMe”-Study. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2023; 16(null): 5101–5111. Publisher Full Text
14. Hjetland GJ, et al.: Digital self-presentation and adolescent mental health: Cross-sectional and longitudinal insights from the “LifeOnSoMe”-study. BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1): 2635. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Hjetland GJ, et al.: How do Norwegian adolescents experience the role of social media in relation to mental health and well-being: A qualitative study. BMC Psychol. 2021; 9(1): 78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Skogen JC, et al.: Commonly reported negative experiences on social media are associated with poor mental health and well-being among adolescents: results from the “LifeOnSoMe”-study. Front. Public Health. 2023; 11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Skogen JC, et al.: Lower Subjective Socioeconomic Status Is Associated With Increased Risk of Reporting Negative Experiences on Social Media. Findings From the “LifeOnSoMe”-Study. Front. Public Health. 2022; 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Skogen JC, et al.: Through the Looking Glass of Social Media. Focus on Self-Presentation and Association with Mental Health and Quality of Life. A Cross-Sectional Survey-Based Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(6): 3319. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Ranganath P, et al.: Negative experiences, social exclusion and unwanted attention on social media: exploring the association with adolescent alcohol use. BMC Public Health. 2022; 22(1): 2361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Orben A, et al.: Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 1649. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Shannon H, et al.: Problematic Social Media Use in Adolescents and Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JMIR Ment. Health. 2022; 9(4): e33450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Purdy N, et al.: The Development of a Multi-Dimensional Coding System to Categorise Negative Online Experiences Including Cyberbullying Behaviors Among Adolescents with Lower Socioeconomic Status. Int. J. Dev. Sci. 2024; 17: 141–155.
23. Coyne SM, et al.: Social Media and Youth Mental Health: A departure from the Status Quo. Handbook of Children and Screens: Digital media, development, and well-being from birth through adolescence. Christakis DA, Hale L, editors. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2024.
24. Twivy E, et al.: The social media scale for depression in adolescence. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth. 2025; 30(1): 2450425. Publisher Full Text
25. Hussain Z, Griffiths MD: Problematic Social Networking Site Use and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review of Recent Large-Scale Studies. Front. Psychiatry. 2018; 9 - 2018. Publisher Full Text
26. Marciano L, et al.: Does social media use make us happy? A meta-analysis on social media and positive well-being outcomes. SSM - Mental Health. 2024; 6: 100331.
27. Salerno L, et al.: Social support and social comparison tendencies predict trajectories of adolescents’ problematic social media use: A longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2025; 20(6): e0323320. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Sursely A, Platt JM: Time Out: a scoping review of non-duration based social media use measures and adolescent mental health.2025.
29. Varona MN, Muela A, Machimbarrena JM: Problematic use or addiction? A scoping review on conceptual and operational definitions of negative social networking sites use in adolescents. Addict. Behav. 2022; 134: 107400. Publisher Full Text
30. Fumagalli E, Shrum LJ, Lowrey TM: The Effects of Social Media Consumption on Adolescent Psychological Well-Being. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2024; 9(2): 119–130. Publisher Full Text
31. Cataldo I, et al.: Assessing problematic use of social media: where do we stand and what can be improved? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2022; 45: 101145. Publisher Full Text
32. Arigo D, et al.: Social Comparison and Mental Health. Curr. Treat. Options Psychiatry. 2024; 11(2): 17–33. Publisher Full Text
33. Arenz A, et al. :Social Comparison on Social Media and Mental Health: A Scoping Review. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft e.V. Ziegele M, Kümpel AS, Dienlin T, Editors. Dusseldorf; 2023.
34. Bekalu MA, Sato T, Viswanath K: Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Media Use in Health and Well-being Studies: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023; 25: e43191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
35. Fassi L, et al.: Social media use in adolescents with and without mental health conditions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2025; 9(6): 1283–1299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Alfredson QD, et al.: Systematic Review of Studies Measuring Social Media Use and Depression, Anxiety, and Psychological Distress in Adolescents: 2018-2020. WMJ. 2024; 123(6): 578–588. PubMed Abstract
37. Browne DT, et al.: From screen time to the digital level of analysis: a scoping review of measures for digital media use in children and adolescents. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(5): e046367. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Hall JA, et al.: Development and initial evaluation of a multidimensional digital stress scale. Psychol Assess. 2021; 33(3): 230–242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Lee AY, Hancock JT: Social media mindsets: a new approach to understanding social media use and psychological well-being. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2024. 29(1): zmad048. Publisher Full Text
40. Moreno MA, et al.: Measuring Interests Not Minutes: Development and Validation of the Adolescents’ Digital Technology Interactions and Importance Scale (ADTI). J. Med. Internet Res. 2020; 22(2): e16736. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
41. Bowling A: Just one question: If one question works, why ask several?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2005; 59(5): 342–345. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Diamantopoulos A, et al.: Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012; 40(3): 434–449. Publisher Full Text
43. Skogen JC, et al.: Straightlining prevalence across domains of social media use and impact on internal consistency and mental health associations in the LifeOnSoMe study. Sci. Rep. 2025; 15(1): 28990. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Spitzer RL, et al.: A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006; 166(10): 1092–1097. Publisher Full Text
45. Turner N, et al.: Validity of the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in late adolescence. Psychol. Assess. 2014; 26(3): 752–762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Janssen AB, Schultze M, Grötsch A: Following the Ants. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2017; 33(6): 409–421. Publisher Full Text
47. Olaru G, et al.: A confirmatory examination of age-associated personality differences: Deriving age-related measurement-invariant solutions using ant colony optimization. J. Pers. 2018; 86(6): 1037–1049. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Olaru G, Witthöft M, Wilhelm O: Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale Big-Five assessments. J. Res. Pers. 2015; 59: 56–68. Publisher Full Text
49. Schroeders U, Wilhelm O, Olaru G: The influence of item sampling on sex differences in knowledge tests. Intelligence. 2016; 58: 22–32. Publisher Full Text
50. Putnick DL, Bornstein MH: Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research. Dev. Rev. 2016; 41: 71–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
51. Neufeld SAS, et al.: Measurement Invariance in Longitudinal Bifactor Models: Review and Application Based on the p Factor. Assessment. 2024; 31(4): 774–793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
52. Chen FF: Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2007; 14(3): 464–504. Publisher Full Text
53. Baldwin SA, Larson MJ: An introduction to using Bayesian linear regression with clinical data. Behav. Res. Ther. 2017; 98: 58–75. Publisher Full Text
54. Andraszewicz S, et al.: An Introduction to Bayesian Hypothesis Testing for Management Research. J. Manag. 2015; 41(2): 521–543. Publisher Full Text
55. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024.
56. Raborn A, Leite W: ShortForm: Automatic Short Form Creation.2024.
57. Goodrich B, et al.: rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan.2024.
58. Morey R, Rouder J: BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs.2024.
59. Rosseel Y: lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012; 48(2): 1–36.
60. Sjoberg DD, et al.: Reproducible Summary Tables with the gtsummary Package. R Journal. 2021; 13: 570–580. Publisher Full Text
61. Gohel D, Skintzos P: flextable: Functions for Tabular Reporting.2024.
62. Meier A, Reinecke L: Computer-Mediated Communication, Social Media, and Mental Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Meta-Review. Commun. Res. 2020; 48(8): 1182–1209.
63. Mieczkowski H, Lee AY, Hancock JT: Priming Effects of Social Media Use Scales on Well-Being Outcomes: The Influence of Intensity and Addiction Scales on Self-Reported Depression. Social Media + Society. 2020; 6(4): 2056305120961784. Publisher Full Text
64. Valkenburg PM: Social media use and well-being: What we know and what we need to know. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022; 45: 101294. Publisher Full Text
65. Karl JA, et al.: Making it Short: Shortening the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences Using Ant Colony Optimization. Mindfulness. 2024; 15(2): 421–434. Publisher Full Text
66. Olaru G, Danner D: Developing Cross-Cultural Short Scales Using Ant Colony Optimization. Assessment. 2021; 28(1): 199–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
67. Welzel C, et al.: Non-invariance? An Overstated Problem With Misconceived Causes. Sociol. Methods Res. 2021; 52(3): 1368–1400. Publisher Full Text
68. Ock J, et al.: The Practical Effects of Measurement Invariance: Gender Invariance in Two Big Five Personality Measures. Assessment. 2019; 27(4): 657–674. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
69. Lowrey T, Shrum LJ: Social media has complex effects on adolescent wellbeing, and policymakers must take note. The Conversation. 2024.
70. Johannes N, et al.: Objective, subjective, and accurate reporting of social media use: No evidence that daily social media use correlates with personality traits, motivational states, or well-being. Technol. Mind Behav. 2021; 2(2). Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 21 Feb 2025

Author details Author details

Turi Reiten Finserås
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Børge Sivertsen
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Ian Colman
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Amanda Iselin Olesen Andersen
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc.

Grant information

The work of GJH was supported by the Dam Foundation [grant number 2021/FO347287], while the work of TRF, AIOA and JCS was supported by The Research Council of Norway [grant number 319845]. The work of IC was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centers of Excellence funding scheme, grant number 262700. The funding sources were not involved in the study design, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the writing of the manuscript.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 01 Sep 2025, 14:228

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 08 Jul 2025, 14:228

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.2

version 1

Published: 21 Feb 2025, 14:228

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.1

© 2025 Skogen JC et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Skogen JC, Finserås TR, Sivertsen B et al. Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A short questionnaire covering important experiences and perceptions of social media use among adolescents. Development and association with symptoms of depression and anxiety. [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:228 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161622.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2025

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2025

Christopher Ferguson, Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187223.r410635

I think this version of the paper ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 08 Jul 2025

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 18 Aug 2025

Christopher Ferguson, Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184396.r397478

I appreciate this revised version of the manuscript. I think it is much improved. With a few more edits to language I think this could likely be accepted.

For one...you must remain open to the null hypothesis simply being true. For instance, I would edit the sentence, "How social media influences mental health likely depends on several interrelated factors..." to instead read, "Whether social media influences mental health may depend on several interrelated factors...although it is possible even these may prove trivial or null."

Same here, I'd temper the language, "Previous research has shown that these domains are more consistently related ..." I think you're going to at least need to add "...although once again, effects tend to be small and some null studies are also seen." for instance, social comparison has NOT been found to be a consistent predictor of outcomes related to social media (even some girls see *improved* body satisfaction with social media use, for isntance). I think I would deephasize social comparison in that, and other sentences following, given lack of clarity in that area (which extends to studies of social comparison outside of social media into more traditional media as well).

I think too the authors are going to acknowledge somewhere in here that these correlations, small though they are (and the authors do need to acknolwedge that effect size), may have more to do with different scales tapping into "general distress" rather than anything really having to do with social media (again, the degree to which time spent on social media is such a poor predictor is one such key).

"Measures of social media use" may be confused for time spent on social media. I wonder if there's a better description for what this is actually measuring, maybe something like "Perceptions of social media" or "experiences on social media". This was a problem with a lot of the body image literature where *internal* measures of personality (i.e., a tendency to compare oneself with others) was confused with media exposure. I think this scale is measuring *perceptions* of experiences on social media...which, we should note, may or may not be accurate (see Sheeringa's recent work on adolescent self-report, which is highly unreliable). However, one's perception of something still can be important to note...two people may have very different perspectives on the same external experience...that says very little about the external experience per se, but could still be diagnostic for the individual. I think it would be very helpful for the authors to make clear so their scale is not misinterpreted.

Similarly, in the discussion I suspect "...six domains of social media use" should be reframed as "six domains of perceptions of social media."

Edit "pressing need" to just "need"...emotional adjectives are the devil's tool in science.

For table 6 are the estimates standardized coefficients? You might want to make a note that, since these don't control for any control variables, these shouldn't be used as robust estimators of unique predictive value of these domains, they are simply for the purposes of basic validation.

Also related to Table 6, I believe Anastazi generally recommended correlations of .3 to.4 for validation studies (I certainly concur with that). With that in mind, some of the correlations may be on the weaker end, which should be noted. In particular, the coefficients for "subjective overuse" are likely too weak to constitute evidence for validity, and this should be noted. that may actually, in fact, go back to my previous comments about some of the questions likely being rather weak (which is not the authors' fault, there are larger controversies about some of these diagnostic issues).

Once again, go through the manuscript and edit "social media use" to be something more accurate to what this is "perceptions of social media" or something like that. This is not the sort of thing that reliably measures any kind of external "use" but rather is an internal personality inventory.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Youth and technology including social media

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 09 Aug 2025

Vincent Paquin, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184396.r397479

The authors have adequately responded to my previous ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 21 Feb 2025

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Jun 2025

Vincent Paquin, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177674.r391575

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use among adolescents, with validation of the factor structure in an independent sample. A notable strength is that the items were developed following focus groups with adolescents. Revisions to the literature review and a more prudent interpretation of the findings would strengthen this article.

- I agree with the first reviewer’s recommendation to further balance the literature review. There is a fairly consistent association between problematic use and depression-anxiety in the literature, but there is controversy on whether problematic use is a valid concept in the first place, and whether its association with mental health really reflects causal effects.

- The authors’ approach to focus on specific domains of social media use, such as self-presentation and negative experiences, is relevant and mirrors qualitative research conducted with youth by this group of researchers and others.

- Although I agree with the first reviewer that we should avoid pathologizing statements such as “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, this item may nonetheless may a valuable indicator of the adolescent’s concern for self-presentation on social media, as reflected in the factor label proposed by the authors.

- I suggest that the authors clarify the rationale for examining associations with depression and anxiety. Are these associations interpreted as indicators of the validity of the scale (in which case, a more balanced literature review, indicating the inconsistent and often weak associations of social media with mental health would be essential), or are the associations exploratory, with the goal of providing an initial description of the psychological correlates of the scale?

- I share the first reviewer’s scepticism about interpreting the % of variance in depression/anxiety explained by the scales, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the potential for common method bias. In my opinion, the associations with depression and anxiety should be interpreted very conservatively.

- I would be more prudent on proposing public health implications of the scale for the reasons indicated above.

- It may be helpful to acknowledge other existing scales that address specific domains of social media use (e.g., refer to 1, 2 and 3 ).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Hall J, Steele R, Christofferson J, Mihailova T: Development and initial evaluation of a multidimensional digital stress scale.Psychological Assessment. 2021; 33 (3): 230-242 Publisher Full Text
2. Lee A, Hancock J: Social media mindsets: a new approach to understanding social media use and psychological well-being. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2023; 29 (1). Publisher Full Text
3. Moreno M, Binger K, Zhao Q, Eickhoff J: Measuring Interests Not Minutes: Development and Validation of the Adolescents’ Digital Technology Interactions and Importance Scale (ADTI). Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020; 22 (2). Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Psychiatry, digital culture

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Aug 2025

Jens Christoffer Skogen, Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway

09 Aug 2025

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use ... Continue reading Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use among adolescents, with validation of the factor structure in an independent sample. A notable strength is that the items were developed following focus groups with adolescents. Revisions to the literature review and a more prudent interpretation of the findings would strengthen this article.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have revised these parts of the manuscript accordingly (see below).

- I agree with the first reviewer’s recommendation to further balance the literature review. There is a fairly consistent association between problematic use and depression-anxiety in the literature, but there is controversy on whether problematic use is a valid concept in the first place, and whether its association with mental health really reflects causal effects.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. We hope the changes made are in line with the reviewers’ suggestions. We have now added this in the introduction:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

- The authors’ approach to focus on specific domains of social media use, such as self-presentation and negative experiences, is relevant and mirrors qualitative research conducted with youth by this group of researchers and others.
Response: Thank you.

- Although I agree with the first reviewer that we should avoid pathologizing statements such as “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, this item may nonetheless may a valuable indicator of the adolescent’s concern for self-presentation on social media, as reflected in the factor label proposed by the authors.
Response: We have tried to describe a little more detail about the context of the study what the framing of the invitation letter was as we hope this may help to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the different statements. Specifially we have now added more information about the framing of the study from the invitation letter:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”

- I suggest that the authors clarify the rationale for examining associations with depression and anxiety. Are these associations interpreted as indicators of the validity of the scale (in which case, a more balanced literature review, indicating the inconsistent and often weak associations of social media with mental health would be essential), or are the associations exploratory, with the goal of providing an initial description of the psychological correlates of the scale?
Response: We see that this part of aims was unclear. It is indeed to provide an initial exploratory analysis of the potential psychological correlates of the shortened scale. The aims have now been changed to:
“In previous publications these domains have been covered by a total of 31 items. Our aim in this paper was to reduce this number substantially using data from two large samples of Norwegian adolescents, while being able to retain the different domains listed above. After item-reduction, we aimed to conduct an initial exploratory analysis of the psychological correlates of the scale, specifically describing associations between the scale domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents.”
We hope this makes our rationale more explicit. While a detailed rationale for the potential links between each domain and mental health outcomes would be too extensive for our introduction, we refer to previous publications—both from our research and others—that provide more specific explanations and discuss underlying mechanisms. Many of these publications are referenced in the revised introduction.

- I share the first reviewer’s scepticism about interpreting the % of variance in depression/anxiety explained by the scales, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the potential for common method bias. In my opinion, the associations with depression and anxiety should be interpreted very conservatively.
Response: The interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and the abstract Additionally, we now also provide more information about the strength of the different associations across the different domains - both in the results and the discussion section in the revised manuscript.

- I would be more prudent on proposing public health implications of the scale for the reasons indicated above.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

- It may be helpful to acknowledge other existing scales that address specific domains of social media use (e.g., refer to 1, 2 and 3 ).
Response: We agree, and the revised manuscript now provides more information about other measure of more specific aspects of social media use:
“In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use among adolescents, with validation of the factor structure in an independent sample. A notable strength is that the items were developed following focus groups with adolescents. Revisions to the literature review and a more prudent interpretation of the findings would strengthen this article.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have revised these parts of the manuscript accordingly (see below).

- I agree with the first reviewer’s recommendation to further balance the literature review. There is a fairly consistent association between problematic use and depression-anxiety in the literature, but there is controversy on whether problematic use is a valid concept in the first place, and whether its association with mental health really reflects causal effects.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. We hope the changes made are in line with the reviewers’ suggestions. We have now added this in the introduction:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

- The authors’ approach to focus on specific domains of social media use, such as self-presentation and negative experiences, is relevant and mirrors qualitative research conducted with youth by this group of researchers and others.
Response: Thank you.

- Although I agree with the first reviewer that we should avoid pathologizing statements such as “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, this item may nonetheless may a valuable indicator of the adolescent’s concern for self-presentation on social media, as reflected in the factor label proposed by the authors.
Response: We have tried to describe a little more detail about the context of the study what the framing of the invitation letter was as we hope this may help to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the different statements. Specifially we have now added more information about the framing of the study from the invitation letter:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”

- I suggest that the authors clarify the rationale for examining associations with depression and anxiety. Are these associations interpreted as indicators of the validity of the scale (in which case, a more balanced literature review, indicating the inconsistent and often weak associations of social media with mental health would be essential), or are the associations exploratory, with the goal of providing an initial description of the psychological correlates of the scale?
Response: We see that this part of aims was unclear. It is indeed to provide an initial exploratory analysis of the potential psychological correlates of the shortened scale. The aims have now been changed to:
“In previous publications these domains have been covered by a total of 31 items. Our aim in this paper was to reduce this number substantially using data from two large samples of Norwegian adolescents, while being able to retain the different domains listed above. After item-reduction, we aimed to conduct an initial exploratory analysis of the psychological correlates of the scale, specifically describing associations between the scale domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents.”
We hope this makes our rationale more explicit. While a detailed rationale for the potential links between each domain and mental health outcomes would be too extensive for our introduction, we refer to previous publications—both from our research and others—that provide more specific explanations and discuss underlying mechanisms. Many of these publications are referenced in the revised introduction.

- I share the first reviewer’s scepticism about interpreting the % of variance in depression/anxiety explained by the scales, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the potential for common method bias. In my opinion, the associations with depression and anxiety should be interpreted very conservatively.
Response: The interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and the abstract Additionally, we now also provide more information about the strength of the different associations across the different domains - both in the results and the discussion section in the revised manuscript.

- I would be more prudent on proposing public health implications of the scale for the reasons indicated above.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

- It may be helpful to acknowledge other existing scales that address specific domains of social media use (e.g., refer to 1, 2 and 3 ).
Response: We agree, and the revised manuscript now provides more information about other measure of more specific aspects of social media use:
“In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

Competing Interests: Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Aug 2025

Jens Christoffer Skogen, Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway

09 Aug 2025

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use ... Continue reading Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use among adolescents, with validation of the factor structure in an independent sample. A notable strength is that the items were developed following focus groups with adolescents. Revisions to the literature review and a more prudent interpretation of the findings would strengthen this article.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have revised these parts of the manuscript accordingly (see below).

- I agree with the first reviewer’s recommendation to further balance the literature review. There is a fairly consistent association between problematic use and depression-anxiety in the literature, but there is controversy on whether problematic use is a valid concept in the first place, and whether its association with mental health really reflects causal effects.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. We hope the changes made are in line with the reviewers’ suggestions. We have now added this in the introduction:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

- The authors’ approach to focus on specific domains of social media use, such as self-presentation and negative experiences, is relevant and mirrors qualitative research conducted with youth by this group of researchers and others.
Response: Thank you.

- Although I agree with the first reviewer that we should avoid pathologizing statements such as “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, this item may nonetheless may a valuable indicator of the adolescent’s concern for self-presentation on social media, as reflected in the factor label proposed by the authors.
Response: We have tried to describe a little more detail about the context of the study what the framing of the invitation letter was as we hope this may help to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the different statements. Specifially we have now added more information about the framing of the study from the invitation letter:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”

- I suggest that the authors clarify the rationale for examining associations with depression and anxiety. Are these associations interpreted as indicators of the validity of the scale (in which case, a more balanced literature review, indicating the inconsistent and often weak associations of social media with mental health would be essential), or are the associations exploratory, with the goal of providing an initial description of the psychological correlates of the scale?
Response: We see that this part of aims was unclear. It is indeed to provide an initial exploratory analysis of the potential psychological correlates of the shortened scale. The aims have now been changed to:
“In previous publications these domains have been covered by a total of 31 items. Our aim in this paper was to reduce this number substantially using data from two large samples of Norwegian adolescents, while being able to retain the different domains listed above. After item-reduction, we aimed to conduct an initial exploratory analysis of the psychological correlates of the scale, specifically describing associations between the scale domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents.”
We hope this makes our rationale more explicit. While a detailed rationale for the potential links between each domain and mental health outcomes would be too extensive for our introduction, we refer to previous publications—both from our research and others—that provide more specific explanations and discuss underlying mechanisms. Many of these publications are referenced in the revised introduction.

- I share the first reviewer’s scepticism about interpreting the % of variance in depression/anxiety explained by the scales, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the potential for common method bias. In my opinion, the associations with depression and anxiety should be interpreted very conservatively.
Response: The interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and the abstract Additionally, we now also provide more information about the strength of the different associations across the different domains - both in the results and the discussion section in the revised manuscript.

- I would be more prudent on proposing public health implications of the scale for the reasons indicated above.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

- It may be helpful to acknowledge other existing scales that address specific domains of social media use (e.g., refer to 1, 2 and 3 ).
Response: We agree, and the revised manuscript now provides more information about other measure of more specific aspects of social media use:
“In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use among adolescents, with validation of the factor structure in an independent sample. A notable strength is that the items were developed following focus groups with adolescents. Revisions to the literature review and a more prudent interpretation of the findings would strengthen this article.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have revised these parts of the manuscript accordingly (see below).

- I agree with the first reviewer’s recommendation to further balance the literature review. There is a fairly consistent association between problematic use and depression-anxiety in the literature, but there is controversy on whether problematic use is a valid concept in the first place, and whether its association with mental health really reflects causal effects.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. We hope the changes made are in line with the reviewers’ suggestions. We have now added this in the introduction:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

- The authors’ approach to focus on specific domains of social media use, such as self-presentation and negative experiences, is relevant and mirrors qualitative research conducted with youth by this group of researchers and others.
Response: Thank you.

- Although I agree with the first reviewer that we should avoid pathologizing statements such as “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, this item may nonetheless may a valuable indicator of the adolescent’s concern for self-presentation on social media, as reflected in the factor label proposed by the authors.
Response: We have tried to describe a little more detail about the context of the study what the framing of the invitation letter was as we hope this may help to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the different statements. Specifially we have now added more information about the framing of the study from the invitation letter:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”

- I suggest that the authors clarify the rationale for examining associations with depression and anxiety. Are these associations interpreted as indicators of the validity of the scale (in which case, a more balanced literature review, indicating the inconsistent and often weak associations of social media with mental health would be essential), or are the associations exploratory, with the goal of providing an initial description of the psychological correlates of the scale?
Response: We see that this part of aims was unclear. It is indeed to provide an initial exploratory analysis of the potential psychological correlates of the shortened scale. The aims have now been changed to:
“In previous publications these domains have been covered by a total of 31 items. Our aim in this paper was to reduce this number substantially using data from two large samples of Norwegian adolescents, while being able to retain the different domains listed above. After item-reduction, we aimed to conduct an initial exploratory analysis of the psychological correlates of the scale, specifically describing associations between the scale domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents.”
We hope this makes our rationale more explicit. While a detailed rationale for the potential links between each domain and mental health outcomes would be too extensive for our introduction, we refer to previous publications—both from our research and others—that provide more specific explanations and discuss underlying mechanisms. Many of these publications are referenced in the revised introduction.

- I share the first reviewer’s scepticism about interpreting the % of variance in depression/anxiety explained by the scales, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the potential for common method bias. In my opinion, the associations with depression and anxiety should be interpreted very conservatively.
Response: The interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and the abstract Additionally, we now also provide more information about the strength of the different associations across the different domains - both in the results and the discussion section in the revised manuscript.

- I would be more prudent on proposing public health implications of the scale for the reasons indicated above.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

- It may be helpful to acknowledge other existing scales that address specific domains of social media use (e.g., refer to 1, 2 and 3 ).
Response: We agree, and the revised manuscript now provides more information about other measure of more specific aspects of social media use:
“In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

Competing Interests: Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 04 Mar 2025

Christopher Ferguson, Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177674.r368605

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce my enthusiasm.

First, the authors need to better balance their lit review, particularly they need to cite null studies related to social media use and mental health to make clear time spent is a poor predictor (see for example, recent meta-analyses of Ferguson, Kaye, Branley-Bell & Markey, in press with Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (2025 [Ref-1]) or Yang and Feng, 2024 in Heliyon). I believe the authors overstate how “consistently related” specific subdomains are as well. For instance, the concept of problematic social media use remains highly controversial and citing it as beyond controversy reduces my confidence in the authors’ objectivity.

One issue I worried about was the fairly obvious demand characteristics of the current study which could create false correlations and unwarranted confidence in the survey. For future studies, including distractor questionnaires may help.

Some items did not impress me as helpful and may result in overpathologizing social media use (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, even “I spend too much time on social media” which many teens may simply because they are constantly told this by parents, teachers, news media, etc., so they think it’s the correct response). Others such as “My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media”…every parent has thought this about every form of media for centuries…it’s just not diagnostic.

It occurs to me that single-responder bias may also be a source of elevated correlations.

In the regression tables, is “median” the median correlation? I apologize if I missed that explanation somewhere. I just wasn’t quite sure what “median” referred to.

Some validity coefficients are on lower end. Usually validity correlations in the .3 to .4 range are good…some of these don’t reach that bar.

The discussion has too many unwarranted claims, for instance:
“The full questionnaire also accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets.” That’s not really true for most of the results, suggesting social media dimensions account for only a small percentage of the variance, assuming my understanding of “median” is correct.

Avoid lofty claims like:: “help identify adolescents at risk of anxiety and depression related to social media use” or “aimed at addressing potential links between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents” or “…has the potential to enhance understanding of mental health challenges associated with social media use, contributing to improved health outcomes for adolescents”

Much of these statements as well as the discussion more generally involve causal implications regarding social media use that can’t be supported by the current data.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

References

1. Ferguson C, Kaye L, Branley-Bell D, Markey P: There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems: Findings from a meta-analysis.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2025; 56 (1): 73-83 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Youth and technology including social media

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Aug 2025

Jens Christoffer Skogen, Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway

09 Aug 2025

Author Response

Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce ... Continue reading Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce my enthusiasm.

First, the authors need to better balance their lit review, particularly they need to cite null studies related to social media use and mental health to make clear time spent is a poor predictor (see for example, recent meta-analyses of Ferguson, Kaye, Branley-Bell & Markey, in press with Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (2025 [Ref-1]) or Yang and Feng, 2024 in Heliyon).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that we could have been clearer when presenting the overall findings of “time spent” as a predictor of mental health outcomes. We have now added additional text regarding this in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript. This includes:
“In the last 15 years, a large volume of research has been focused on the potential link between social media use and mental health outcomes. Initially, the primary focus was on the amount of time used on social media, but currently a more fine-grained and purposeful focus has been advocated. This reflects the growing awareness that the total time spent on social media is a crude and imprecise measure for a host of different exposures and interactions. Specifically, time spent on social media has been described as an overly simplistic metric, analogous to measuring 'time spent' at school or home, when assessing risk factors for mental health problems. Importantly, several reviews of the literature have concluded that it is a poor predictor for mental health outcomes.”
I believe the authors overstate how “consistently related” specific subdomains are as well. For instance, the concept of problematic social media use remains highly controversial and citing it as beyond controversy reduces my confidence in the authors’ objectivity.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and/or “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript in order to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. Specifically, we have added the following:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

One issue I worried about was the fairly obvious demand characteristics of the current study which could create false correlations and unwarranted confidence in the survey. For future studies, including distractor questionnaires may help.

Some items did not impress me as helpful and may result in overpathologizing social media use (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, even “I spend too much time on social media” which many teens may simply because they are constantly told this by parents, teachers, news media, etc., so they think it’s the correct response). Others such as “My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media”…every parent has thought this about every form of media for centuries…it’s just not diagnostic.

It occurs to me that single-responder bias may also be a source of elevated correlations.
Response: We agree that we should have made these potential sources of bias (demand characteristics, single-responder bias, overpathologizing) more explicit in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we now acknowledge the potential for bias – although we believe that the framing of the study may have alleviated some of the demand characteristics as the invitation letter emphasised the exploratory nature of the study and explicitly focused on potential positive and negative aspects of social media use. Addition to limitations:
“Fourthly, the data collection relies on self-report and is based on a single informant (the adolescents). This may lead to single-responder bias, increasing the risk that observed associations reflect individual reporting tendencies rather than true relationships. It also makes our data collection vulnerable to common method bias which may have inflated or distorted observed associations between variables. Relatedly, demand characteristics may also be a concern. While the explicit description of the study’s aims in the invitation letter introduces the potential for demand characteristics—where participants may tailor their responses to align with perceived expectations—framing the project as an exploration of both positive and negative aspects of social media use likely reduced this specific bias. By signalling an openness to a full spectrum of experiences, rather than reinforcing the perhaps more common negative narrative, the invitation may have encouraged more balanced and authentic responses from participants, thereby mitigating some of the limitations typically associated with demand characteristics.”
We have also added a little more information about the framing of the study in the methods section:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”
The items included are based on focus group interviews of adolescents, and we believe that they hold experiential relevance in relation to adolescents’ views, experiences and motivations to use social media. Specifically, we think this approach supports the notion that the items are grounded in the lived experiences, perspectives, and motivations even if they are indeed also influenced by the framing and purpose of our study, parental and societal views of social media and peer influence.

In the regression tables, is “median” the median correlation? I apologize if I missed that explanation somewhere. I just wasn’t quite sure what “median” referred to.
Response: We see that we have been unclear about this in the original manuscript. We have now revised and expanded the description of the statistical analyses and changed the labels of the columns in table 6. Specifically, we now make it clear that this column gives the results of the median posterior estimates, and that they express the average change in the dependent variable as standard deviation for each increase in the original scale of the independent variable. The mean posterior estimates were virtually identical to the median posterior estimates.

Some validity coefficients are on lower end. Usually validity correlations in the .3 to .4 range are good…some of these don’t reach that bar.
Response: We are not sure what the reviewer means by validity coefficients but if it refers to the median regression coefficients in table 6, we agree that some of them should be considered a very small effect size, especially for “subjective overuse” in the model development dataset. We have now expanded on the results section and the first part of the discussion section to highlight the differences in the strength of association for the different domains.

The discussion has too many unwarranted claims, for instance:
“The full questionnaire also accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets.” That’s not really true for most of the results, suggesting social media dimensions account for only a small percentage of the variance, assuming my understanding of “median” is correct.
Response: We agree the reviewers’ comments about this, and the interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and from the abstract.

Avoid lofty claims like:: “help identify adolescents at risk of anxiety and depression related to social media use” or “aimed at addressing potential links between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents” or “…has the potential to enhance understanding of mental health challenges associated with social media use, contributing to improved health outcomes for adolescents” Much of these statements as well as the discussion more generally involve causal implications regarding social media use that can’t be supported by the current data.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce my enthusiasm.

First, the authors need to better balance their lit review, particularly they need to cite null studies related to social media use and mental health to make clear time spent is a poor predictor (see for example, recent meta-analyses of Ferguson, Kaye, Branley-Bell & Markey, in press with Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (2025 [Ref-1]) or Yang and Feng, 2024 in Heliyon).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that we could have been clearer when presenting the overall findings of “time spent” as a predictor of mental health outcomes. We have now added additional text regarding this in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript. This includes:
“In the last 15 years, a large volume of research has been focused on the potential link between social media use and mental health outcomes. Initially, the primary focus was on the amount of time used on social media, but currently a more fine-grained and purposeful focus has been advocated. This reflects the growing awareness that the total time spent on social media is a crude and imprecise measure for a host of different exposures and interactions. Specifically, time spent on social media has been described as an overly simplistic metric, analogous to measuring 'time spent' at school or home, when assessing risk factors for mental health problems. Importantly, several reviews of the literature have concluded that it is a poor predictor for mental health outcomes.”
I believe the authors overstate how “consistently related” specific subdomains are as well. For instance, the concept of problematic social media use remains highly controversial and citing it as beyond controversy reduces my confidence in the authors’ objectivity.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and/or “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript in order to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. Specifically, we have added the following:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

One issue I worried about was the fairly obvious demand characteristics of the current study which could create false correlations and unwarranted confidence in the survey. For future studies, including distractor questionnaires may help.

Some items did not impress me as helpful and may result in overpathologizing social media use (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, even “I spend too much time on social media” which many teens may simply because they are constantly told this by parents, teachers, news media, etc., so they think it’s the correct response). Others such as “My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media”…every parent has thought this about every form of media for centuries…it’s just not diagnostic.

It occurs to me that single-responder bias may also be a source of elevated correlations.
Response: We agree that we should have made these potential sources of bias (demand characteristics, single-responder bias, overpathologizing) more explicit in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we now acknowledge the potential for bias – although we believe that the framing of the study may have alleviated some of the demand characteristics as the invitation letter emphasised the exploratory nature of the study and explicitly focused on potential positive and negative aspects of social media use. Addition to limitations:
“Fourthly, the data collection relies on self-report and is based on a single informant (the adolescents). This may lead to single-responder bias, increasing the risk that observed associations reflect individual reporting tendencies rather than true relationships. It also makes our data collection vulnerable to common method bias which may have inflated or distorted observed associations between variables. Relatedly, demand characteristics may also be a concern. While the explicit description of the study’s aims in the invitation letter introduces the potential for demand characteristics—where participants may tailor their responses to align with perceived expectations—framing the project as an exploration of both positive and negative aspects of social media use likely reduced this specific bias. By signalling an openness to a full spectrum of experiences, rather than reinforcing the perhaps more common negative narrative, the invitation may have encouraged more balanced and authentic responses from participants, thereby mitigating some of the limitations typically associated with demand characteristics.”
We have also added a little more information about the framing of the study in the methods section:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”
The items included are based on focus group interviews of adolescents, and we believe that they hold experiential relevance in relation to adolescents’ views, experiences and motivations to use social media. Specifically, we think this approach supports the notion that the items are grounded in the lived experiences, perspectives, and motivations even if they are indeed also influenced by the framing and purpose of our study, parental and societal views of social media and peer influence.

In the regression tables, is “median” the median correlation? I apologize if I missed that explanation somewhere. I just wasn’t quite sure what “median” referred to.
Response: We see that we have been unclear about this in the original manuscript. We have now revised and expanded the description of the statistical analyses and changed the labels of the columns in table 6. Specifically, we now make it clear that this column gives the results of the median posterior estimates, and that they express the average change in the dependent variable as standard deviation for each increase in the original scale of the independent variable. The mean posterior estimates were virtually identical to the median posterior estimates.

Some validity coefficients are on lower end. Usually validity correlations in the .3 to .4 range are good…some of these don’t reach that bar.
Response: We are not sure what the reviewer means by validity coefficients but if it refers to the median regression coefficients in table 6, we agree that some of them should be considered a very small effect size, especially for “subjective overuse” in the model development dataset. We have now expanded on the results section and the first part of the discussion section to highlight the differences in the strength of association for the different domains.

The discussion has too many unwarranted claims, for instance:
“The full questionnaire also accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets.” That’s not really true for most of the results, suggesting social media dimensions account for only a small percentage of the variance, assuming my understanding of “median” is correct.
Response: We agree the reviewers’ comments about this, and the interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and from the abstract.

Avoid lofty claims like:: “help identify adolescents at risk of anxiety and depression related to social media use” or “aimed at addressing potential links between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents” or “…has the potential to enhance understanding of mental health challenges associated with social media use, contributing to improved health outcomes for adolescents” Much of these statements as well as the discussion more generally involve causal implications regarding social media use that can’t be supported by the current data.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

Competing Interests: Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Aug 2025

Jens Christoffer Skogen, Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway

09 Aug 2025

Author Response

Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce ... Continue reading Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce my enthusiasm.

First, the authors need to better balance their lit review, particularly they need to cite null studies related to social media use and mental health to make clear time spent is a poor predictor (see for example, recent meta-analyses of Ferguson, Kaye, Branley-Bell & Markey, in press with Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (2025 [Ref-1]) or Yang and Feng, 2024 in Heliyon).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that we could have been clearer when presenting the overall findings of “time spent” as a predictor of mental health outcomes. We have now added additional text regarding this in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript. This includes:
“In the last 15 years, a large volume of research has been focused on the potential link between social media use and mental health outcomes. Initially, the primary focus was on the amount of time used on social media, but currently a more fine-grained and purposeful focus has been advocated. This reflects the growing awareness that the total time spent on social media is a crude and imprecise measure for a host of different exposures and interactions. Specifically, time spent on social media has been described as an overly simplistic metric, analogous to measuring 'time spent' at school or home, when assessing risk factors for mental health problems. Importantly, several reviews of the literature have concluded that it is a poor predictor for mental health outcomes.”
I believe the authors overstate how “consistently related” specific subdomains are as well. For instance, the concept of problematic social media use remains highly controversial and citing it as beyond controversy reduces my confidence in the authors’ objectivity.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and/or “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript in order to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. Specifically, we have added the following:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

One issue I worried about was the fairly obvious demand characteristics of the current study which could create false correlations and unwarranted confidence in the survey. For future studies, including distractor questionnaires may help.

Some items did not impress me as helpful and may result in overpathologizing social media use (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, even “I spend too much time on social media” which many teens may simply because they are constantly told this by parents, teachers, news media, etc., so they think it’s the correct response). Others such as “My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media”…every parent has thought this about every form of media for centuries…it’s just not diagnostic.

It occurs to me that single-responder bias may also be a source of elevated correlations.
Response: We agree that we should have made these potential sources of bias (demand characteristics, single-responder bias, overpathologizing) more explicit in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we now acknowledge the potential for bias – although we believe that the framing of the study may have alleviated some of the demand characteristics as the invitation letter emphasised the exploratory nature of the study and explicitly focused on potential positive and negative aspects of social media use. Addition to limitations:
“Fourthly, the data collection relies on self-report and is based on a single informant (the adolescents). This may lead to single-responder bias, increasing the risk that observed associations reflect individual reporting tendencies rather than true relationships. It also makes our data collection vulnerable to common method bias which may have inflated or distorted observed associations between variables. Relatedly, demand characteristics may also be a concern. While the explicit description of the study’s aims in the invitation letter introduces the potential for demand characteristics—where participants may tailor their responses to align with perceived expectations—framing the project as an exploration of both positive and negative aspects of social media use likely reduced this specific bias. By signalling an openness to a full spectrum of experiences, rather than reinforcing the perhaps more common negative narrative, the invitation may have encouraged more balanced and authentic responses from participants, thereby mitigating some of the limitations typically associated with demand characteristics.”
We have also added a little more information about the framing of the study in the methods section:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”
The items included are based on focus group interviews of adolescents, and we believe that they hold experiential relevance in relation to adolescents’ views, experiences and motivations to use social media. Specifically, we think this approach supports the notion that the items are grounded in the lived experiences, perspectives, and motivations even if they are indeed also influenced by the framing and purpose of our study, parental and societal views of social media and peer influence.

In the regression tables, is “median” the median correlation? I apologize if I missed that explanation somewhere. I just wasn’t quite sure what “median” referred to.
Response: We see that we have been unclear about this in the original manuscript. We have now revised and expanded the description of the statistical analyses and changed the labels of the columns in table 6. Specifically, we now make it clear that this column gives the results of the median posterior estimates, and that they express the average change in the dependent variable as standard deviation for each increase in the original scale of the independent variable. The mean posterior estimates were virtually identical to the median posterior estimates.

Some validity coefficients are on lower end. Usually validity correlations in the .3 to .4 range are good…some of these don’t reach that bar.
Response: We are not sure what the reviewer means by validity coefficients but if it refers to the median regression coefficients in table 6, we agree that some of them should be considered a very small effect size, especially for “subjective overuse” in the model development dataset. We have now expanded on the results section and the first part of the discussion section to highlight the differences in the strength of association for the different domains.

The discussion has too many unwarranted claims, for instance:
“The full questionnaire also accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets.” That’s not really true for most of the results, suggesting social media dimensions account for only a small percentage of the variance, assuming my understanding of “median” is correct.
Response: We agree the reviewers’ comments about this, and the interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and from the abstract.

Avoid lofty claims like:: “help identify adolescents at risk of anxiety and depression related to social media use” or “aimed at addressing potential links between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents” or “…has the potential to enhance understanding of mental health challenges associated with social media use, contributing to improved health outcomes for adolescents” Much of these statements as well as the discussion more generally involve causal implications regarding social media use that can’t be supported by the current data.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce my enthusiasm.

First, the authors need to better balance their lit review, particularly they need to cite null studies related to social media use and mental health to make clear time spent is a poor predictor (see for example, recent meta-analyses of Ferguson, Kaye, Branley-Bell & Markey, in press with Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (2025 [Ref-1]) or Yang and Feng, 2024 in Heliyon).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that we could have been clearer when presenting the overall findings of “time spent” as a predictor of mental health outcomes. We have now added additional text regarding this in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript. This includes:
“In the last 15 years, a large volume of research has been focused on the potential link between social media use and mental health outcomes. Initially, the primary focus was on the amount of time used on social media, but currently a more fine-grained and purposeful focus has been advocated. This reflects the growing awareness that the total time spent on social media is a crude and imprecise measure for a host of different exposures and interactions. Specifically, time spent on social media has been described as an overly simplistic metric, analogous to measuring 'time spent' at school or home, when assessing risk factors for mental health problems. Importantly, several reviews of the literature have concluded that it is a poor predictor for mental health outcomes.”
I believe the authors overstate how “consistently related” specific subdomains are as well. For instance, the concept of problematic social media use remains highly controversial and citing it as beyond controversy reduces my confidence in the authors’ objectivity.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and/or “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript in order to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. Specifically, we have added the following:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

One issue I worried about was the fairly obvious demand characteristics of the current study which could create false correlations and unwarranted confidence in the survey. For future studies, including distractor questionnaires may help.

Some items did not impress me as helpful and may result in overpathologizing social media use (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, even “I spend too much time on social media” which many teens may simply because they are constantly told this by parents, teachers, news media, etc., so they think it’s the correct response). Others such as “My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media”…every parent has thought this about every form of media for centuries…it’s just not diagnostic.

It occurs to me that single-responder bias may also be a source of elevated correlations.
Response: We agree that we should have made these potential sources of bias (demand characteristics, single-responder bias, overpathologizing) more explicit in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we now acknowledge the potential for bias – although we believe that the framing of the study may have alleviated some of the demand characteristics as the invitation letter emphasised the exploratory nature of the study and explicitly focused on potential positive and negative aspects of social media use. Addition to limitations:
“Fourthly, the data collection relies on self-report and is based on a single informant (the adolescents). This may lead to single-responder bias, increasing the risk that observed associations reflect individual reporting tendencies rather than true relationships. It also makes our data collection vulnerable to common method bias which may have inflated or distorted observed associations between variables. Relatedly, demand characteristics may also be a concern. While the explicit description of the study’s aims in the invitation letter introduces the potential for demand characteristics—where participants may tailor their responses to align with perceived expectations—framing the project as an exploration of both positive and negative aspects of social media use likely reduced this specific bias. By signalling an openness to a full spectrum of experiences, rather than reinforcing the perhaps more common negative narrative, the invitation may have encouraged more balanced and authentic responses from participants, thereby mitigating some of the limitations typically associated with demand characteristics.”
We have also added a little more information about the framing of the study in the methods section:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”
The items included are based on focus group interviews of adolescents, and we believe that they hold experiential relevance in relation to adolescents’ views, experiences and motivations to use social media. Specifically, we think this approach supports the notion that the items are grounded in the lived experiences, perspectives, and motivations even if they are indeed also influenced by the framing and purpose of our study, parental and societal views of social media and peer influence.

In the regression tables, is “median” the median correlation? I apologize if I missed that explanation somewhere. I just wasn’t quite sure what “median” referred to.
Response: We see that we have been unclear about this in the original manuscript. We have now revised and expanded the description of the statistical analyses and changed the labels of the columns in table 6. Specifically, we now make it clear that this column gives the results of the median posterior estimates, and that they express the average change in the dependent variable as standard deviation for each increase in the original scale of the independent variable. The mean posterior estimates were virtually identical to the median posterior estimates.

Some validity coefficients are on lower end. Usually validity correlations in the .3 to .4 range are good…some of these don’t reach that bar.
Response: We are not sure what the reviewer means by validity coefficients but if it refers to the median regression coefficients in table 6, we agree that some of them should be considered a very small effect size, especially for “subjective overuse” in the model development dataset. We have now expanded on the results section and the first part of the discussion section to highlight the differences in the strength of association for the different domains.

The discussion has too many unwarranted claims, for instance:
“The full questionnaire also accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets.” That’s not really true for most of the results, suggesting social media dimensions account for only a small percentage of the variance, assuming my understanding of “median” is correct.
Response: We agree the reviewers’ comments about this, and the interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and from the abstract.

Avoid lofty claims like:: “help identify adolescents at risk of anxiety and depression related to social media use” or “aimed at addressing potential links between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents” or “…has the potential to enhance understanding of mental health challenges associated with social media use, contributing to improved health outcomes for adolescents” Much of these statements as well as the discussion more generally involve causal implications regarding social media use that can’t be supported by the current data.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

Competing Interests: Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 21 Feb 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 3 (revision) 01 Sep 25	read
Version 2 (revision) 08 Jul 25	read	read
Version 1 21 Feb 25	read	read

Christopher Ferguson, Stetson University, DeLand, USA
Vincent Paquin, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

10 Sep 2025 | for Version 3

Christopher Ferguson, Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I think this version of the paper is much better. I have no further comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Youth and technology including social media

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

18 Aug 2025 | for Version 2

Christopher Ferguson, Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

9 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Youth and technology including social media

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

09 Aug 2025 | for Version 2

Vincent Paquin, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have adequately responded to my previous review and I have no further comments to make.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Psychiatry, digital culture

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

16 Jun 2025 | for Version 1

Vincent Paquin, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Psychiatry, digital culture

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Aug 2025

Jens Christoffer Skogen, Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway

Reviewer #2: Vincent Paquin; Approved with reservations.

Overall, this study makes a helpful contribution to the literature by proposing a scale that evaluates specific domains of social media use among adolescents, with validation of the factor structure in an independent sample. A notable strength is that the items were developed following focus groups with adolescents. Revisions to the literature review and a more prudent interpretation of the findings would strengthen this article.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have revised these parts of the manuscript accordingly (see below).

- I agree with the first reviewer’s recommendation to further balance the literature review. There is a fairly consistent association between problematic use and depression-anxiety in the literature, but there is controversy on whether problematic use is a valid concept in the first place, and whether its association with mental health really reflects causal effects.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. We hope the changes made are in line with the reviewers’ suggestions. We have now added this in the introduction:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

- The authors’ approach to focus on specific domains of social media use, such as self-presentation and negative experiences, is relevant and mirrors qualitative research conducted with youth by this group of researchers and others.
Response: Thank you.

- Although I agree with the first reviewer that we should avoid pathologizing statements such as “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, this item may nonetheless may a valuable indicator of the adolescent’s concern for self-presentation on social media, as reflected in the factor label proposed by the authors.
Response: We have tried to describe a little more detail about the context of the study what the framing of the invitation letter was as we hope this may help to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the different statements. Specifially we have now added more information about the framing of the study from the invitation letter:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”

- I suggest that the authors clarify the rationale for examining associations with depression and anxiety. Are these associations interpreted as indicators of the validity of the scale (in which case, a more balanced literature review, indicating the inconsistent and often weak associations of social media with mental health would be essential), or are the associations exploratory, with the goal of providing an initial description of the psychological correlates of the scale?
Response: We see that this part of aims was unclear. It is indeed to provide an initial exploratory analysis of the potential psychological correlates of the shortened scale. The aims have now been changed to:
“In previous publications these domains have been covered by a total of 31 items. Our aim in this paper was to reduce this number substantially using data from two large samples of Norwegian adolescents, while being able to retain the different domains listed above. After item-reduction, we aimed to conduct an initial exploratory analysis of the psychological correlates of the scale, specifically describing associations between the scale domains and symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents.”
We hope this makes our rationale more explicit. While a detailed rationale for the potential links between each domain and mental health outcomes would be too extensive for our introduction, we refer to previous publications—both from our research and others—that provide more specific explanations and discuss underlying mechanisms. Many of these publications are referenced in the revised introduction.

- I share the first reviewer’s scepticism about interpreting the % of variance in depression/anxiety explained by the scales, especially considering the cross-sectional nature of the data and the potential for common method bias. In my opinion, the associations with depression and anxiety should be interpreted very conservatively.
Response: The interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and the abstract Additionally, we now also provide more information about the strength of the different associations across the different domains - both in the results and the discussion section in the revised manuscript.

- I would be more prudent on proposing public health implications of the scale for the reasons indicated above.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

- It may be helpful to acknowledge other existing scales that address specific domains of social media use (e.g., refer to 1, 2 and 3 ).
Response: We agree, and the revised manuscript now provides more information about other measure of more specific aspects of social media use:
“In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

View more View less

Competing Interests

Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

04 Mar 2025 | for Version 1

Christopher Ferguson, Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Youth and technology including social media

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Aug 2025

Jens Christoffer Skogen, Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway

Reviewer #1: Christopher Ferguson; Not approved.

I appreciated the authors efforts to develop a scale that better assesses youth social media use. However, I have some observations which reduce my enthusiasm.

First, the authors need to better balance their lit review, particularly they need to cite null studies related to social media use and mental health to make clear time spent is a poor predictor (see for example, recent meta-analyses of Ferguson, Kaye, Branley-Bell & Markey, in press with Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (2025 [Ref-1]) or Yang and Feng, 2024 in Heliyon).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that we could have been clearer when presenting the overall findings of “time spent” as a predictor of mental health outcomes. We have now added additional text regarding this in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript. This includes:
“In the last 15 years, a large volume of research has been focused on the potential link between social media use and mental health outcomes. Initially, the primary focus was on the amount of time used on social media, but currently a more fine-grained and purposeful focus has been advocated. This reflects the growing awareness that the total time spent on social media is a crude and imprecise measure for a host of different exposures and interactions. Specifically, time spent on social media has been described as an overly simplistic metric, analogous to measuring 'time spent' at school or home, when assessing risk factors for mental health problems. Importantly, several reviews of the literature have concluded that it is a poor predictor for mental health outcomes.”
I believe the authors overstate how “consistently related” specific subdomains are as well. For instance, the concept of problematic social media use remains highly controversial and citing it as beyond controversy reduces my confidence in the authors’ objectivity.
Response: We agree that measures and conceptualizations of other aspects of social media use also have it challenges, perhaps especially for “problematic social media use” and/or “social media addiction”. We do, however, believe that such an approach holds more promise than focusing on time spent on social media (whether is self-report or not log-based). We have tried to nuance the presentation of this section a little more in the first paragraph of the revised manuscript in order to also show the potential challenges with these other measures. Specifically, we have added the following:
“These other, more nuanced, measures of social media use are not without their own issues, however. The conceptualisation of problematic social media use, have for instance been based on several different theoretical frameworks (usually with behavioural addiction as a vantage point) and lack of focus on underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to compare results across studies, and challenging legitimacy of findings. Despite challenges in conceptualization, more specific measures of social media use remain a more promising research avenue than mere simple time-based metrics.
In line with this effort to move beyond time-based metrics, several different scales have been developed in recent years. These scales typically focus on more specific aspects of social media use, such as digital stress, problematic social media use, social media engagement, digital habits, passive-or-active use, perceived social support or feelings about social media. The diversity of these scales reflects the complex, multifaceted nature of social media as a phenomenon, but also introduces challenges for research synthesis and practical application.”

One issue I worried about was the fairly obvious demand characteristics of the current study which could create false correlations and unwarranted confidence in the survey. For future studies, including distractor questionnaires may help.

Some items did not impress me as helpful and may result in overpathologizing social media use (e.g. “I spend a lot of time and energy on what I post on social media”, even “I spend too much time on social media” which many teens may simply because they are constantly told this by parents, teachers, news media, etc., so they think it’s the correct response). Others such as “My parents/guardians think I spend too much time on social media”…every parent has thought this about every form of media for centuries…it’s just not diagnostic.

It occurs to me that single-responder bias may also be a source of elevated correlations.
Response: We agree that we should have made these potential sources of bias (demand characteristics, single-responder bias, overpathologizing) more explicit in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we now acknowledge the potential for bias – although we believe that the framing of the study may have alleviated some of the demand characteristics as the invitation letter emphasised the exploratory nature of the study and explicitly focused on potential positive and negative aspects of social media use. Addition to limitations:
“Fourthly, the data collection relies on self-report and is based on a single informant (the adolescents). This may lead to single-responder bias, increasing the risk that observed associations reflect individual reporting tendencies rather than true relationships. It also makes our data collection vulnerable to common method bias which may have inflated or distorted observed associations between variables. Relatedly, demand characteristics may also be a concern. While the explicit description of the study’s aims in the invitation letter introduces the potential for demand characteristics—where participants may tailor their responses to align with perceived expectations—framing the project as an exploration of both positive and negative aspects of social media use likely reduced this specific bias. By signalling an openness to a full spectrum of experiences, rather than reinforcing the perhaps more common negative narrative, the invitation may have encouraged more balanced and authentic responses from participants, thereby mitigating some of the limitations typically associated with demand characteristics.”
We have also added a little more information about the framing of the study in the methods section:
“The invitation letter to both the pilot and the “LifeOnSoMe”-study described the project as an initiative to better understand social media as a social arena for adolescents, which could hold benefits as well as challenges. It also explicitly informed participants that the study aimed to explore both positive and negative associations between social media use and young people’s mental health and well-being.”
The items included are based on focus group interviews of adolescents, and we believe that they hold experiential relevance in relation to adolescents’ views, experiences and motivations to use social media. Specifically, we think this approach supports the notion that the items are grounded in the lived experiences, perspectives, and motivations even if they are indeed also influenced by the framing and purpose of our study, parental and societal views of social media and peer influence.

In the regression tables, is “median” the median correlation? I apologize if I missed that explanation somewhere. I just wasn’t quite sure what “median” referred to.
Response: We see that we have been unclear about this in the original manuscript. We have now revised and expanded the description of the statistical analyses and changed the labels of the columns in table 6. Specifically, we now make it clear that this column gives the results of the median posterior estimates, and that they express the average change in the dependent variable as standard deviation for each increase in the original scale of the independent variable. The mean posterior estimates were virtually identical to the median posterior estimates.

Some validity coefficients are on lower end. Usually validity correlations in the .3 to .4 range are good…some of these don’t reach that bar.
Response: We are not sure what the reviewer means by validity coefficients but if it refers to the median regression coefficients in table 6, we agree that some of them should be considered a very small effect size, especially for “subjective overuse” in the model development dataset. We have now expanded on the results section and the first part of the discussion section to highlight the differences in the strength of association for the different domains.

The discussion has too many unwarranted claims, for instance:
“The full questionnaire also accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in symptoms of anxiety and depression across both data sets.” That’s not really true for most of the results, suggesting social media dimensions account for only a small percentage of the variance, assuming my understanding of “median” is correct.
Response: We agree the reviewers’ comments about this, and the interpretation of the explained variance has now been removed from the revised discussion and from the abstract.

Avoid lofty claims like:: “help identify adolescents at risk of anxiety and depression related to social media use” or “aimed at addressing potential links between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents” or “…has the potential to enhance understanding of mental health challenges associated with social media use, contributing to improved health outcomes for adolescents” Much of these statements as well as the discussion more generally involve causal implications regarding social media use that can’t be supported by the current data.
Response: We agree and see that we have been overzealous in this section of the manuscript. In the revised version, this section has been extensively shortened and focus on the scale’s potential usefulness in research.

View more View less

Competing Interests

Dr. Colman has received consulting fees from Meta Inc.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Schønning V, et al.: Social Media Use and Mental Health and Well-Being Among Adolescents - A Scoping Review. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11: 1949. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Valkenburg PM, Meier A, Beyens I: Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022; 44: 58–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Hall JA: Ten Myths About the Effect of Social Media Use on Well-Being. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024; 26: e59585. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Sala A, Porcaro L, Gómez E: Social media use and adolescents’ mental health and well-being: An umbrella review. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2024; 14: 100404. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Orben A: Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2020; 55(4): 407–414. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Kaye K, et al.: The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17(10): 3661. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Hickman Dunne J, et al.: Identifying relevant experiences to the measurement of social media experience via focus groups with young people: A registered report. PsyArXiv Preprints; 2023.

[8] 8. Coyne SM, et al.: Does time spent using social media impact mental health?: An eight year longitudinal study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020; 104: 106160. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Orben A, et al.: Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2024; 3(6): 407–423. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Keyes KM, Platt JM: Annual Research Review: Sex, gender, and internalizing conditions among adolescents in the 21st century - trends, causes, consequences. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 2024; 65(4): 384–407. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Ferguson CJ, et al.: There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems: Findings from a meta-analysis. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pr. 2025; 56(1): 73–83. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Yang Q, Feng Y: Relationships between social networking sites use and subjective well-being--- a meta-analysis and meta-analytic structural equation model. Heliyon. 2024; 10(12): e32463. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Finserås TR, et al.: Reexploring Problematic Social Media Use and Its Relationship with Adolescent Mental Health. Findings from the “LifeOnSoMe”-Study. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2023; 16(null): 5101–5111. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Hjetland GJ, et al.: Digital self-presentation and adolescent mental health: Cross-sectional and longitudinal insights from the “LifeOnSoMe”-study. BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1): 2635. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Hjetland GJ, et al.: How do Norwegian adolescents experience the role of social media in relation to mental health and well-being: A qualitative study. BMC Psychol. 2021; 9(1): 78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Skogen JC, et al.: Commonly reported negative experiences on social media are associated with poor mental health and well-being among adolescents: results from the “LifeOnSoMe”-study. Front. Public Health. 2023; 11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Skogen JC, et al.: Lower Subjective Socioeconomic Status Is Associated With Increased Risk of Reporting Negative Experiences on Social Media. Findings From the “LifeOnSoMe”-Study. Front. Public Health. 2022; 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Skogen JC, et al.: Through the Looking Glass of Social Media. Focus on Self-Presentation and Association with Mental Health and Quality of Life. A Cross-Sectional Survey-Based Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(6): 3319. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Ranganath P, et al.: Negative experiences, social exclusion and unwanted attention on social media: exploring the association with adolescent alcohol use. BMC Public Health. 2022; 22(1): 2361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Orben A, et al.: Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 1649. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Shannon H, et al.: Problematic Social Media Use in Adolescents and Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JMIR Ment. Health. 2022; 9(4): e33450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Purdy N, et al.: The Development of a Multi-Dimensional Coding System to Categorise Negative Online Experiences Including Cyberbullying Behaviors Among Adolescents with Lower Socioeconomic Status. Int. J. Dev. Sci. 2024; 17: 141–155.

[23] 23. Coyne SM, et al.: Social Media and Youth Mental Health: A departure from the Status Quo. Handbook of Children and Screens: Digital media, development, and well-being from birth through adolescence. Christakis DA, Hale L, editors. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2024.

[24] 24. Twivy E, et al.: The social media scale for depression in adolescence. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth. 2025; 30(1): 2450425. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Hussain Z, Griffiths MD: Problematic Social Networking Site Use and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review of Recent Large-Scale Studies. Front. Psychiatry. 2018; 9 - 2018. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Marciano L, et al.: Does social media use make us happy? A meta-analysis on social media and positive well-being outcomes. SSM - Mental Health. 2024; 6: 100331.

[27] 27. Salerno L, et al.: Social support and social comparison tendencies predict trajectories of adolescents’ problematic social media use: A longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2025; 20(6): e0323320. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Sursely A, Platt JM: Time Out: a scoping review of non-duration based social media use measures and adolescent mental health.2025.

[29] 29. Varona MN, Muela A, Machimbarrena JM: Problematic use or addiction? A scoping review on conceptual and operational definitions of negative social networking sites use in adolescents. Addict. Behav. 2022; 134: 107400. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Fumagalli E, Shrum LJ, Lowrey TM: The Effects of Social Media Consumption on Adolescent Psychological Well-Being. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2024; 9(2): 119–130. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Cataldo I, et al.: Assessing problematic use of social media: where do we stand and what can be improved? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2022; 45: 101145. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Arigo D, et al.: Social Comparison and Mental Health. Curr. Treat. Options Psychiatry. 2024; 11(2): 17–33. Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Arenz A, et al. :Social Comparison on Social Media and Mental Health: A Scoping Review. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft e.V. Ziegele M, Kümpel AS, Dienlin T, Editors. Dusseldorf; 2023.

[34] 34. Bekalu MA, Sato T, Viswanath K: Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Media Use in Health and Well-being Studies: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023; 25: e43191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] 35. Fassi L, et al.: Social media use in adolescents with and without mental health conditions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2025; 9(6): 1283–1299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Alfredson QD, et al.: Systematic Review of Studies Measuring Social Media Use and Depression, Anxiety, and Psychological Distress in Adolescents: 2018-2020. WMJ. 2024; 123(6): 578–588. PubMed Abstract

[37] 37. Browne DT, et al.: From screen time to the digital level of analysis: a scoping review of measures for digital media use in children and adolescents. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(5): e046367. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Hall JA, et al.: Development and initial evaluation of a multidimensional digital stress scale. Psychol Assess. 2021; 33(3): 230–242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Lee AY, Hancock JT: Social media mindsets: a new approach to understanding social media use and psychological well-being. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2024. 29(1): zmad048. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Moreno MA, et al.: Measuring Interests Not Minutes: Development and Validation of the Adolescents’ Digital Technology Interactions and Importance Scale (ADTI). J. Med. Internet Res. 2020; 22(2): e16736. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[41] 41. Bowling A: Just one question: If one question works, why ask several?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2005; 59(5): 342–345. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Diamantopoulos A, et al.: Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012; 40(3): 434–449. Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Skogen JC, et al.: Straightlining prevalence across domains of social media use and impact on internal consistency and mental health associations in the LifeOnSoMe study. Sci. Rep. 2025; 15(1): 28990. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Spitzer RL, et al.: A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006; 166(10): 1092–1097. Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Turner N, et al.: Validity of the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in late adolescence. Psychol. Assess. 2014; 26(3): 752–762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Janssen AB, Schultze M, Grötsch A: Following the Ants. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2017; 33(6): 409–421. Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Olaru G, et al.: A confirmatory examination of age-associated personality differences: Deriving age-related measurement-invariant solutions using ant colony optimization. J. Pers. 2018; 86(6): 1037–1049. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Olaru G, Witthöft M, Wilhelm O: Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale Big-Five assessments. J. Res. Pers. 2015; 59: 56–68. Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Schroeders U, Wilhelm O, Olaru G: The influence of item sampling on sex differences in knowledge tests. Intelligence. 2016; 58: 22–32. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Putnick DL, Bornstein MH: Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research. Dev. Rev. 2016; 41: 71–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[51] 51. Neufeld SAS, et al.: Measurement Invariance in Longitudinal Bifactor Models: Review and Application Based on the p Factor. Assessment. 2024; 31(4): 774–793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[52] 52. Chen FF: Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2007; 14(3): 464–504. Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Baldwin SA, Larson MJ: An introduction to using Bayesian linear regression with clinical data. Behav. Res. Ther. 2017; 98: 58–75. Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Andraszewicz S, et al.: An Introduction to Bayesian Hypothesis Testing for Management Research. J. Manag. 2015; 41(2): 521–543. Publisher Full Text

[55] 55. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024.

[56] 56. Raborn A, Leite W: ShortForm: Automatic Short Form Creation.2024.

[57] 57. Goodrich B, et al.: rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan.2024.

[58] 58. Morey R, Rouder J: BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs.2024.

[59] 59. Rosseel Y: lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012; 48(2): 1–36.

[60] 60. Sjoberg DD, et al.: Reproducible Summary Tables with the gtsummary Package. R Journal. 2021; 13: 570–580. Publisher Full Text

[61] 61. Gohel D, Skintzos P: flextable: Functions for Tabular Reporting.2024.

[62] 62. Meier A, Reinecke L: Computer-Mediated Communication, Social Media, and Mental Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Meta-Review. Commun. Res. 2020; 48(8): 1182–1209.

[63] 63. Mieczkowski H, Lee AY, Hancock JT: Priming Effects of Social Media Use Scales on Well-Being Outcomes: The Influence of Intensity and Addiction Scales on Self-Reported Depression. Social Media + Society. 2020; 6(4): 2056305120961784. Publisher Full Text

[64] 64. Valkenburg PM: Social media use and well-being: What we know and what we need to know. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022; 45: 101294. Publisher Full Text

[65] 65. Karl JA, et al.: Making it Short: Shortening the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences Using Ant Colony Optimization. Mindfulness. 2024; 15(2): 421–434. Publisher Full Text

[66] 66. Olaru G, Danner D: Developing Cross-Cultural Short Scales Using Ant Colony Optimization. Assessment. 2021; 28(1): 199–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[67] 67. Welzel C, et al.: Non-invariance? An Overstated Problem With Misconceived Causes. Sociol. Methods Res. 2021; 52(3): 1368–1400. Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Ock J, et al.: The Practical Effects of Measurement Invariance: Gender Invariance in Two Big Five Personality Measures. Assessment. 2019; 27(4): 657–674. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[69] 69. Lowrey T, Shrum LJ: Social media has complex effects on adolescent wellbeing, and policymakers must take note. The Conversation. 2024.

[70] 70. Johannes N, et al.: Objective, subjective, and accurate reporting of social media use: No evidence that daily social media use correlates with personality traits, motivational states, or well-being. Technol. Mind Behav. 2021; 2(2). Publisher Full Text

Bergen social media engagement and experiences scale (Be-SMEE): A short questionnaire covering important experiences and perceptions of social media use among adolescents. Development and association with symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Abstract

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Discussion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Methods

Measures of social media use

Table 1. Different experiences and perceptions of social media use.

Symptoms of anxiety

Symptoms of depression

Statistical analyses

Results

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of demographic and mental health variables across method development and external validation sample.

Table 3. Factor loadings across method development and external validation sample.

Table 4. Model fit indices across method development and external validation sample.

Table 5. Model fit indices for measurement invariance testing.

Table 6. Bayesian linear regression models across model development and external validation sample.

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions

Authors’ contributions

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Compliance with reporting standards

Consent for publication

Availability of data and materials

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated