MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402746123 · doi:10.2196/53958

French Versions of 4 English Questionnaires on Problematic Smartphone Use: Cross-Cultural Linguistic Translation and Adaptation Study

2024· article· en· W4402746123 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Islam El Boudi, Mathilde Riant, Alexandre Bellier, Nicolas Vuillerme

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsOperationalizationCLARITYScale (ratio)PsychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Excessive use of smartphones is recognized as a major problem in our modern society and can have dramatic consequences on the health of adolescents and young adults. Measuring problematic smartphone use in research and clinical practice is generally operationalized with self-reported questionnaires. In order to comprehensively assess the issue of problematic smartphone usage within the French population, it is imperative to employ validated French-language questionnaires. However, at this point, existing questionnaires are primarily available in English. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, these English questionnaires have yet to undergo validation processes for French-speaking cohorts. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a cross-cultural translation of the Smartphone Addiction Scale, Nomophobia Questionnaire, Problematic Use of Mobile Phones scale, and Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale to French. METHODS: The translation process was performed using the forward/backward method. The first translation phase involved asking 4 independent French translators to translate the original English version of the questionnaires into French. In the second phase, the French version was backtranslated to English by a native English speaker. In the third phase, 2 concept experts were asked to comment and suggest modifications to the statements if necessary. Finally, the last version of the translated questionnaires was presented to 18 participants to assess the clarity, intelligibility, and acceptability of the translations. RESULTS: During the forward translation step, the translation differences were minor. During the backward translation, the English native speaker correctly backtranslated 18 of the 33 items of the Smartphone Addiction Scale, 17 of the 20 items of the Problematic Use of Mobile Phones scale, and 13 of the 15 items of the Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale. Backtranslation for the Nomophobia Questionnaire was less satisfactory, with only 10 out of 20 items that were correctly backtranslated. The linguistic verification step revealed a minimal modification for the 4 questionnaires. The participants also suggested few improvements that we have considered for the final version. We produced the final version directly after this step. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully adapted and effectively translated 4 questionnaires that assess problematic smartphone use to French. This step is a prerequisite for the validation of the French questionnaires. These adapted measures can serve as valuable research instruments for investigating and addressing issues related to problematic smartphone use in French-speaking countries and for making international comparisons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207