Straightlining prevalence across domains of social media use and impact on internal consistency and mental health associations in the LifeOnSoMe study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Straightlining (uniform responses across items), poses a risk in surveys. Among adolescents, previous studies have investigated the prevalence and impact of straightlining in shorter questionnaires within larger surveys. A typical finding is that straightlining is more common among younger respondents, and particularly among boys. A better understanding of straightlining is important for improving data quality. The present study aims to estimate the prevalence of straightlining among adolescents filling out a survey covering different aspects of social media use across 64 items. Additionally, it seeks to assess the impact of straightlining on internal consistency and the associations between six domains of social media use and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Data from the «LifeOnSoMe»-study (N = 3,285), collected from adolescents (aged 16+) in Bergen, Norway. Descriptive and inferential statistics. In total, 5.4% of participants were straightliners, (8.6% of the boys vs. 2.9% of the girls (p < 0.001)). There were no differences in age between straightliners and the remainder of the sample. Overall, the prevalence and impact of straightlining was limited in the present sample. However, there were large discrepancies in terms of both internal consistency, correlations between domains of social media use, and associations with symptoms of anxiety and depression between straightliners and the remainder of the sample. Straightlining behavior had minimal effects on this sample's analytical epidemiological conclusions. While boys were more prone to straightlining than girls, overall prevalence was low. However, significant discrepancies between straightliners and other respondents suggest potential risks in samples with higher straightlining prevalence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".