Am I Being Phubbed? : Investigating Psychometric Properties of Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP) in Indonesian Samples
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v15i2.44734Keywords:
being phubbed, factor analysis, GSBP scale, Rasch model, validityAbstract
Phubbing, defined as ignoring others during face-to-face interactions due to smartphone use, has been linked
to adverse interpersonal and psychological outcomes. However, evidence on the psychometric properties of
instruments assessing this phenomenon remains limited in the Indonesian context, particularly for the Generic
Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP). This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Indonesian
version of the GSBP using a sequential validation approach integrating dimension-specific Rasch analysis and
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). A total of 316 university students in West Java participated in an online
survey. Rasch analysis supported acceptable item functioning and rating-scale performance across all
subscales, while CFA confirmed the stability of the three-factor structure after item refinement. The final 19-
item model demonstrated excellent fit (????2/???????? = 1.16–1.94; RMSEA = 0.022–0.055; CFI = 0.975–0.998) and
satisfactory internal consistency, with McDonald’s omega values exceeding 0.70. These findings support the
construct validity and reliability of the Indonesian GSBP-19, comprising three dimensions: Perceived Norms,
Feeling Ignored, and Interpersonal Conflict. The scale offers a robust tool for assessing phubbing experiences
and may inform interventions to reduce digital distraction and improve interpersonal communication. Future
research should examine its applicability across more diverse populations to strengthen its generalizability.
References
Ahn, D., & Shin, D.-H. (2013). Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for avoiding social
isolation? Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective well-being. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(6), 2453–2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.022
Andrich, D., & Marais, I. (2019). A course in Rasch measurement theory: Measuring in the educational, social
and health sciences. Springer.
Arenz, A., & Schnauber-Stockmann, A. (2024). Who “phubs”? A systematic meta-analytic review of
phubbing predictors. Mobile Media & Communication, 12(3), 637–661.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579231215678
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of crosscultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Beukeboom, C. J., & Pollmann, M. (2021). Partner phubbing: Why using your phone during interactions
with your partner can be detrimental for your relationship. Computers in Human Behavior, 124,
106932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106932
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences
(3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
Brentari, E., & Golia, S. (2007). Unidimensionality in the Rasch model: How to detect and interpret.
Statistica, 67(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-2201/3508
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Chen, Y.-Q., Huang, X.-J., Yang, F., Yang, J.-J., Zhong, J., Yao, K.-M., Kuang, J.-X., & Xu, M.-Z.
(2024). A Chinese adaptation of the patient health questionnaire for adolescents (PHQ-A): Factor
structure and psychometric properties. BMC Psychiatry, 24(1), 331.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05783-3
Chi, L.-C., Tang, T.-C., & Tang, E. (2022). The phubbing phenomenon: A cross-sectional study on the
relationships among social media addiction, fear of missing out, personality traits, and phubbing
behavior. Current Psychology, 41(2), 1112–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02468-y
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents
and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 9–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Measuring phone snubbing behavior: Development
and validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed
(GSBP). Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.020
Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of
local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 41(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616677520
Davey, S., Davey, A., Raghav, S., Singh, J., Singh, N., Blachnio, A., & Przepiórka, A. (2018). Predictors
and consequences of “phubbing” among adolescents and youth in India: An impact evaluation
study. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 25(1), 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_71_17
David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social exclusion, and
attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155–163.
https://doi.org/10.1086/690940
Fisher, W. P. Jr. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 21(1),
1095.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
García-Castro, F. J., Abreu, A. M., Rando, B., & Blanca, M. J. (2022). The phubbing scale (PS-8) in the
Portuguese population: Psychometric properties. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 35(1), 7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-022-00209-z
Geng, J., Lei, L., Ouyang, M., Nie, J., & Wang, P. (2021). The influence of perceived parental phubbing
on adolescents’ problematic smartphone use: A two-wave multiple mediation model. Addictive
Behaviors, 121, 106995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106995
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.).
Cengage.
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell phone-induced
ostracism threatens fundamental needs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 460–473.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877
Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged
analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386–394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability.
But… Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ivanova, A., Gorbaniuk, O., Błachnio, A., Przepiórka, A., Mraka, N., Polishchuk, V., & Gorbaniuk, J.
(2020). Mobile phone addiction, phubbing, and depression among men and women: A
moderated mediation analysis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 91(3), 655–668.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09723-8
Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., Çulha, İ., & Babadağ, B.
(2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural
equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74.
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
Kaya, A., Şata, M., Türk, N., Özok, H. I., & Yıldırım, M. (2024). Reliability and validity of short-form
generic scale of being phubbed and phubbing among Turkish adolescents and young adults.
Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-024-00428-4
Knausenberger, J., Giesen-Leuchter, A., & Echterhoff, G. (2022). Feeling ostracized by others’
smartphone use: The effect of phubbing on fundamental needs, mood, and trust. Frontiers in
Psychology, 13, 883901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883901
Li, Y. (2023). Validation and short-form development of the generic scale of being phubbed and phubbing
and relationship between being phubbed and phubbing in Chinese adolescents. Current Psychology,
42(25), 21424–21434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03222-8
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: Which residual data-type works best? Journal of
Outcome Measurement, 2(3), 266–283.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1),
85–106.
Linacre, J. M. (2004). Rasch model estimation: Further topics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5(1), 95–
110.
Linacre, J. M. (2012). A user’s guide to WINSTEP & MINISTEP: Rasch-model computer programs.
Winsteps.com
Linacre, J. M. (2025). Winsteps® & Ministep: Rasch-model computer programs (Version 5.9.0).
Winsteps.com. https://www.winsteps.com
McDaniel, B. T., & Wesselmann, E. (2021). “You phubbed me for that?” Reason given for phubbing and
perceptions of interactional quality and exclusion. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3),
413–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.255
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Pichardo, M. C., Cano, F., Garzón-Umerenkova, A., De La Fuente, J., Peralta-Sánchez, F. J., & AmateRomera, J. (2018). Self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ) in Spanish adolescents: Factor structure
and Rasch analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01370
Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS
and IBM’s SPSS (6th ed.). Routledge.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response
theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–
566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone:
Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human
Behavior, 54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
Sun, J., & Samp, J. A. (2022). ‘Phubbing is happening to you’: Examining predictors and effects of
phubbing behaviour in friendships. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(12), 2691–2704.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1943711
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Tay, L., Meade, A. W., & Cao, M. (2015). An overview and practical guide to IRT measurement
equivalence analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 3–46.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114553062
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it
and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?
Arthritis Care & Research, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108
Thomas, T. T., Carnelley, K. B., & Hart, C. M. (2022). Phubbing in romantic relationships and
retaliation: A daily diary study. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, 107398.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107398
Van Zile-Tamsen, C. (2017). Using Rasch analysis to inform rating scale development. Research in Higher
Education, 58(8), 922–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9448-0
Yam, F. C., & Kumcagiz, H. (2020). Adaptation of general phubbing scale to Turkish culture and
investigation of phubbing levels of university students in terms of various variables. ADDICTA:
The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 7(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.5152/addicta.2020.19061
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Reny Rustyawati, Putri Nabhani Nurany
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
