Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Translation of the Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS) in Adults

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4520579/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Translation of the Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS) in Adults

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4520579/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: The Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS) is a common tool for assessing individuals’ inclination toward Boredom. The Arabic version of the SBPS has not been validated despite the language being spoken by over 420 million people worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to translate the SBPS into Arabic and prove its psychometric properties on a sample of Arabic-speaking adults.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 410 participants were recruited to participate by completing the translated Arabic version of the SBPS through an online Google Forms survey. The validation of the scale was carried out using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis approach.

Results: Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed a better fit after adding a correlation between residuals of items 2 and 6. The SBPS showed high internal reliability (ω = .81; α = .81). No significant differences were found in SBPS scores between males and females. Concurrent validity indicated that higher levels of anxiety, loneliness, and smartphone addiction were significantly associated with greater boredom proneness.

Conclusion: Our results confirm the reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the SBPS, suggesting its suitability for use among Arabic-speaking adults in various settings. This concise and user-friendly tool potentially promotes cross-cultural research on boredom proneness.

Short Boredom Proneness Scale

Psychometric properties

Arabic

Boredom is a global human feeling (1); it displays a state of exhaustion as well as uneasiness (2). Boredom is also regularly defined as passivity or an absence of interaction in a job or environment (3). Commonly analyzed as a transient feeling (1), however, long-term exposure to boredom can have damaging effects on mental health and wellness, resulting in greater susceptibility to stress, anxiety (4), and also maladaptive behaviors (5).

Boredom proneness describes a person's consistent susceptibility or disposition to experience boredom. It's rather a subjective quality (1), meaning that some individuals are more vulnerable to boredom than others. This could be due to various factors such as personality traits, attention span, or interest levels (6). More specifically, people with high proneness tend to perceive tasks as boring and struggle to remain focused, which results in a regular state of boredom (7). Moreover, boredom often stems from the inability of highly anxious individuals to be engaged by their surroundings (1). The risk of being easily bored may also be related to loneliness, as isolated individuals may lack external stimulation, which is needed for their personal development (8). In addition, depression symptoms might be related to boredom (9). Also, a Chinese longitudinal study probed the correlation between proneness to boredom and smartphone addiction. This uncovered that they mutually influence one another, but smartphone addiction is a greater predictor of boredom proneness than vice versa (10).

Boredom Scales

Boredom can be monitored and analyzed by various scales, each with unique approaches and focus areas. Over the years, 16 boredom scales have been established; we name: the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS) (11), the Zuckerman Boredom Susceptibility Scale (ZBS) (12), the Boredom Coping Scale (BCS) (13), the Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS) (14), the Free Time Boredom Scale (FTBS) (15), the Sexual Boredom Scale (SBS) (16), the Relational Boredom Scale (RBS) (17), the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS) (18), the State Boredom Measure (SBM) (19), the Boredom Experience Scale (BES) (20), Lee’s Job Boredom Scale (LJBS) (21), the Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS) (22), the Boredom Coping Scale (BCS-A) (23), the boredom subscale of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) (24), the Academic Boredom Scale (ABS-10) (25), and lastly the Precursors to Boredom Scale (PBS) (26). Brief variations of these scales have emerged over the past few years, for example, the Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS) (27), or the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale Short-Form (MSBS-SF) (28).

Short Boredom Proneness Scale

For instance, the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), originally based on 28 items, is an appropriate measurement tool for boredom. The SBPS condenses the original 28 items into a more concise 8-item scale. The Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS) was developed to offer a more efficient and practical version, making it more concise and easier to administer (27). Plus, the original BPS has complexity in its factor structure; this was addressed in the SBPS by rewording, making all items of the SBPS positively endorsed statements (27). The SBPS has many advantages over the other scales; we state its conciseness and efficiency. The former, without sacrificing the depth and accuracy of the assessment, requires less time and cognition to complete, which makes it more accessible and easier to use in various settings (29). This makes it particularly valuable in large population studies or places with limited time and resources. Additionally, the SBPS was found to measure boredom proneness in the same way for both sexes, so it shows sex invariance; it's an essential feature that contributes to the scale's reliability and validity (29).

The SBPS has been generally described as a unidimensional scale. This means that all items on the scale measure a single construct of boredom proneness (27). However, a study conducted by Neil A. Culphas showed that the SBPS can also be described as having two factors. The first factor is "internal stimulation" and the second one is "external stimulation", which represents the individual's requirements for the internal or external environment, that is, the individual's desire for change or novelty (30).

The SBPS has been translated and validated in many languages, showcasing its universal relevance. These languages include German (31), Chinese (32), French (33), Turkish (34), and Russian (35). Despite this considerable recognition, a substantial gap exists in their application for the Arabic language, which is spoken by over 420 million individuals worldwide (36).

The present study

A study conducted in Egypt highlighted the high prevalence of boredom in rural areas, as life lacks excitement and is usually monotonous (37). Also, a recent Lebanese study (38) on boredom proneness, loneliness, and smartphone addiction during the COVID-19 lockdown revealed several key findings: young adults who got bored easily were seen to lean toward being addicted to their smartphones. Excessive phone use is driven by an inclination towards getting bored easily. Boredom proneness was also associated with mental health conditions like anxiety and depression. These factors might contribute to smartphone use as a coping mechanism that is so appealing. This study’s context is Lebanon, but it provides insight into broader trends in Arab countries. Boredom levels and smartphone use of people in this region are affected by unique social and cultural elements (38). To resolve the gap, this paper aims to translate the SBPS into Arabic and prove its psychometric properties on a sample of Arabic-speaking adults. Our objectives are to assess the factor structure, convergent, and concurrent validity of our Arabic translation of the SBPS, in addition to its internal consistency and sex variability. We hypothesize a one-factor solution similar to the original scale, invariability across sexes, and a positive correlation with measures of anxiety, loneliness, and smartphone addiction.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol received approval from the ethics committee of the School of Pharmacy at the Lebanese International University (2024ERC-026-LIUSOP). An online informed consent was considered obtained from each participant when submitting the form. This project adhered to all pertinent guidelines and regulations (with Helsinki declarations).

Study design and participants

This cross-sectional study took place between March and April 2024. An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to Lebanese adults nationwide. Eligible participants for the study were required to be citizens of Lebanon, above 18, and willing to participate.Data collection employed snowball sampling and respondent-driven methods. The survey was designed with Google Forms and distributed to potential participants via social media platforms and messaging applications. Study objectives and general instructions were clearly explained before participation.

Translation Procedure

On various scales, the forward and backward translation approach was used. A Lebanese translator who had no connection to the study translated the English version into Arabic. A Lebanese psychologist who speaks English fluently then translated the Arabic text back into English. To find and then fix any discrepancies, the first and second English versions were compared (39).

Questionnaire

The survey was constructed in Arabic, Lebanon’s official language, and divided into three distinct sections. The first part served as an online consent checkpoint to confirm voluntary submission and to address ethical considerations such as confidentiality and response anonymity. This section also included an introduction to the project and instructions for the questionnaire. Part two focused on gathering socio-demographic information from participants such as sex and age. The third section covered various measures detailed below.

Short Boredom Proneness Scale: This scale was developed in 2015 by Struk et al. It is a condensed version of the original Boredom Proneness scale and contains 8 positively endorsed items (e.g. “In most situations, it is hard for me to find something to do or see to keep me interested”). The responses are typically given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from extremely uncharacteristic of me to extremely characteristic of me. A higher score reflects higher proneness to boredom (27).

Lebanese Anxiety Scale (LAS-10): This scale was developed by Hallit et al. to assess anxiety in the Lebanese population. The scale consists of 10 items, questions 1 to 7 were rated like the visual analogue scale used to assess pain however questions 8 to 10 were scored using a 4-point Likert scale (e.g. “I have insomnia (Difficulty in falling asleep, broken sleep, unsatisfying sleep and fatigue on waking, dreams, nightmares, night terrors”). A higher score indicates higher levels of anxiety (40).

Smartphone Addiction Scale‑Short Version (SAS‑SV): Validated in Lebanon (41), this scale was developed by Kwon et al. to measure the severity of smartphone addiction. The scale consists of 10 items using the 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (e.g. “Having a hard time concentrating in class, while doing assignments, or while working due to smartphone use”.) A higher score indicates a higher degree of smartphone addiction (42).

Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale: Validated in Lebanon (43), subjective loneliness was assessed with the modified version of the Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale, comprised of 5 items (44) (e.g. “I miss having people around me”). One point is given for a “yes” answer and zero for a “no” answer. Higher scores indicate more loneliness.

Analytic Strategy

Data treatment. There were no missing responses in the dataset. To examine the factor structure of the SBPS, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysisusing the data from the total sample via SPSS AMOS v.29 software. A minimum sample of 160 participants was deemed necessary based on 3 to 20 times the number of the scale’s variables (45). Parameter estimates were obtained using the maximum likelihood method. Calculated fit indices were the normed model chi-square (χ²/df), the Steiger-Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Values ≤ 5 for χ²/df, ≤ .05 for SRMR, ≤ .08 for RMSEA, and ≥ .90 for CFI and TLI indicate a good fit of the model to the data (46). Multivariate normality was not verified at first (Critical ratio >5; Bollen-Stine p = .008); therefore, we performed a non-parametric bootstrapping procedure.

Sex invariance. To examine the sex invariance of SBPS scores, we conducted a multi-group CFA (47) using the total sample. Measurement invariance was assessed at the configural, metric, and scalar levels (48). We accepted ΔCFI ≤ .010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ .015 or ΔSRMR ≤ .010 as evidence of invariance (47). Comparison between males and females was done using the Student t-test only if scalar or partial scalar invariance.

Composite reliability in both subsamples was assessed using McDonald’s ω and Cronbach’s alpha, with values greater than .70 reflecting adequate composite reliability. The normality of the SBPS score was verified since the skewness and kurtosis values for each item of the scale varied between -1 and +1 (49). To assess concurrent validity, the Pearson test was used to correlate scores.

Four hundred ten participants filled out the survey, with a mean age of 23.28 ± 4.66 years, 72.4% females, 91.2% single, and 95.4% with a university level of education.

Content Validity

The scale’s items were checked by an expert committee composed of two psychiatrists, two psychologists, and one pharmacist to make sure that the content was pertinent to the study goal.

Face Validity

To ensure the clarity, comprehensibility, and cultural appropriateness of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted on 30 participants. None of the participants expressed difficulty understanding or answering the SBPS questions.

Construct validity

CFA indicated that the fit of the one-factor model of the SBPS was poor: χ²/df= 243.87/20 = 12.19, RMSEA = .165 (90% CI .147, .184), SRMR = .096, CFI = .781, TLI = .693. We added a correlation between residuals of items 2 and 6 since the modification index was high; the numbers improved as follows: χ²/df= 52.72/19 = 2.77, RMSEA = .066 (90% CI .045, .087), SRMR = .043, CFI = .967, TLI = .951. The standardized estimates of factor loadings were all adequate (Table 1). Internal reliability was very good (ω = .81; α = .81).

Table 1. Standardized Estimates of Factor Loadings from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Boredom Proneness Scale in the total sample.

Item	Loading factor
1. I often find myself at “loose ends,” not knowing what to do.	.64
2. I find it hard to entertain myself.	.36
3. Many things I have to do are repetitive and monotonous.	.74
4. It takes more stimulation to get me going than most people.	.77
5. I don’t feel motivated by most things that I do.	.59
6. In most situations, it is hard for me to find something to do or see to keep me interested.	.36
7. Much of the time, I just sit around doing nothing.	.58
8. Unless I am doing something exciting, even dangerous, I feel half-dead and dull.	.59

Sex Invariance

Indices suggested that configural, metric, and scalar invariance was supported across sex (Table 2). No significant difference was found in terms of SBPS scores between males and females (30.19 ± 9.66 vs 29.92 ± 9.03, t(408) = .26, p = .793.

Table 2. Measurement Invariance across sex in the total sample.

Model	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	Model Comparison	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR
Configural	.952	.058	.050
Metric	.948	.055	.064	Configural vs metric	.004	.003	.014
Scalar	.934	.057	.067	Metric vs scalar	.014	.002	.003

Note. CFI = Comparative fit index; RMSEA = Steiger-Lind root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardised root mean square residual.

Concurrent validity

Higher anxiety (r = .30; p < .001), loneliness (r = .37; p < .001) and smartphone addiction (r = .35; p < .001) were significantly associated with more boredom proneness.

The Arabic version of the SBPS was successfully validated in this study. The study showed a one-factor structure, which is similar to what the original SBPS (29). This structure suggests that regardless of culture, the core experience and perception of boredom remain universal. The German SBPS, however, revealed a three-factor structure (31), while the Chinese SBPS exhibited two factors (32). Therefore, such psychological scales might reflect various aspects or states of boredom across diverse cultures due to cultural and linguistic context variations. These results might suggest that integrating or adapting psychological scales in different societies must take into account cultural and linguistic contexts while highlighting boredom as being universal in its existence but with various understandings.

The Arabic translation also showed a remarkable level of internal consistency, with ω = .81 and α = .81. This indicates that the items within the scale are highly correlated; hence, they are all measuring the same factor, boredom proneness. The value of 0.81, obtained in this study, is higher than the .76 of the original scale (27), indicating that the Arabic translation of the scale is nearly as consistent as the original SBPS. Moreover, international studies showed higher values for alpha; for example, the Turkish adaptation scored .91 (34), and the Russian version reported .86 (35).

Another finding of our study is that the factor loadings of the Arabic SBPS remained invariant by sex at the three levels (configural, metric, and scalar). Evidence for invariance reflects that across group comparisons of SBPS subscale means is valid. In other words, individuals of both sexes understand and interpret the meaning of SBPS items in the same way. In line with our findings, previous validations (27) provided evidence supporting measurement invariance across sex.

The concurrent validity of the SBPS was studied by measuring the correlation with different psychological factors. Anxiety, loneliness, and smartphone addiction were among the studied factors. The study showed a correlation between these factors and SBPS scores. Hence, boredom proneness can generate negative emotions, which may lead to depression, anxiety, loneliness, and lower levels of subjective wellbeing(50). Individuals with higher anxiety levels tend to find it challenging to engage with their surroundings, so they tend to feel more boredom. In a study conducted by LePera, boredom was positively correlated with anxiety; the more prone to boredom an individual is, the more likely they are to develop anxiety (9). Concerning smartphone addiction, a study conducted by Zhang et al. suggests that individuals with boredom proneness tend to have an increased likelihood of smartphone addiction (51).

Clinical Implications

The results of the research have significant implications in the clinical setting. This scale can be used by healthcare professionals to measure the propensity of boredom among their patients.

Understanding the concept of boredom proneness is crucial in clinical practice, particularly in mental health, as it has been linked with higher anxiety and depression (9,52). Furthermore, being able to assess boredom proneness accurately could help clinicians in the development of targeted interventions. For example, they could develop therapy techniques aiming to improve attention span and increase engagement in daily activities (53). These interventions could prevent more serious health issues or the worsening of preexisting health problems (1). Subsequently, this tool can help track the effectiveness of these interventions by monitoring boredom proneness over time; this would allow adjustments to plans of treatment if judged necessary.

Limitations

The sample included mainly highly educated and young individuals, limiting the application of the scale to a broader, more diverse population. Future studies should aim to cover a more varied sample with a broader age range and different education levels.

In addition, the cross-sectional study captures data at a single point in time, which doesn’t allow for investigation of changes in boredom proneness over time. Hence, we are unable to understand the scale’s temporal stability and the evolution of boredom proneness with age and changing circumstances. Therefore, further research should consider a longitudinal design, collecting data at multiple time points, subsequently allowing us to determine the evolution of boredom over time and the environmental factors affecting these changes to understand its complex psychological construct.

To sum up, the Arabic version of the short Boredom Proneness Scale demonstrated good internal consistency and sex invariance. Implementing and adopting this scale among the Arab population will provide insights or a better understanding of boredom and how it is prone to affect people inhabiting that region. Moreover, it also exposes the fact that boredom is linked with other psychological aspects like anxiety, loneliness, and smartphone addiction. On another note, longitudinal studies are necessary to explain how boredom proneness changes over time in different situations. Also, further research is needed on the connection between boredom proneness and a range of mental health issues.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committee of the School of Pharmacy at the Lebanese International University (2024ERC-026-LIUSOP). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects; the online submission of the soft copy was considered equivalent to receiving a written informed consent. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication:Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due the restrictions from the ethics committee, but are available upon a reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Competing interests: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding:None.

Author contributions:SH, FFR and SO designed the study; TK drafted the manuscript; SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; DM collected the data. RH reviewed the paper for intellectual content; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent.

Acknowledgements:The authors would like to thank all participants.

Ndetei DM, Nyamai P, Mutiso V. Boredom–understanding the emotion and its impact on our lives: an African perspective. Front Sociol. 2023;8:1213190.
Elpidorou A. The bright side of boredom. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2014 Nov 3 [cited 2024 Apr 27];5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01245/full.
Finkielsztein M. The Significance of Boredom: A Literature Review. 2022;1–33.
Lee FKS, Zelman DC. Boredom proneness as a predictor of depression, anxiety and stress: The moderating effects of dispositional mindfulness. Personal Individ Differ. 2019;146:68–75.
Schwartze MM, Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Pekrun R, Reck C, Marx AKG, et al. Boredom Makes Me Sick: Adolescents’ Boredom Trajectories and Their Health-Related Quality of Life. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12):6308.
Bieleke M, Ripper L, Schüler J, Wolff W. Boredom is the root of all evil—or is it? A psychometric network approach to individual differences in behavioural responses to boredom. R Soc Open Sci 9(9):211998.
Mugon J, Struk A, Danckert J. A Failure to Launch: Regulatory Modes and Boredom Proneness. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1126.
Brodeur A, Clark A, Flèche S, Powdthavee N. Assessing the impact of the coronavirus lockdown on unhappiness, loneliness, and boredom using Google Trends. 2020.
LePera N. Relationships Between Boredom Proneness, Mindfulness, Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Use. New Sch Psychol Bull. 2011;8(2):15–25.
Zhang Y, Li S, Yu G. The longitudinal relationship between boredom proneness and mobile phone addiction: Evidence from a cross-lagged model. Curr Psychol. 2022;41(12):8821–8.
Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom Proneness–The Development and Correlates of a New Scale. J Pers Assess. 1986;50(1):4–17.
Zuckerman M, Hillsdale NJ. New York: L. Erlbaum Associates ; Distributed by the Halsted Press Division of Wiley; 1979. 449.
Hamilton JA, Haier RJ, Buchsbaum MS. Intrinsic enjoyment and boredom coping scales: Validation with personality, evoked potential and attention measures. Personal Individ Differ. 1984;5(2):183–93.
Iso-Ahola SE, Weissinger E. Perceptions of Boredom in Leisure: Conceptualization, Reliability and Validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale. J Leis Res. 1990;22(1):1–17.
Fahlman SA, Mercer-Lynn KB, Flora DB, Eastwood JD. Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Assessment. 2013;20(1):68–85.
Watt JD, Ewing JE. Toward the development and validation of a measure of sexual boredom. J Sex Res. 1996;33(1):57–66.
Harasymchuk C, Fehr B. Development of a prototype-based measure of relational boredom. Pers Relatsh. 2012;19(1):162–81.
Fahlman SA, Mercer-Lynn KB, Flora DB, Eastwood JD. Development and Validation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale. Assessment. 2013;20(1):68–85.
Todman M. The dimensions of state boredom frequency duration unpleasantness consequences and causal attributions. Educ Res Int. 2013;1.
van Tilburg WAP, Igou ER. On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motiv Emot. 2012;36(2):181–94.
Lee TW. Toward the development and validation of a measure of job boredom.
Reijseger G, Schaufeli W, Peeters MCW. Taris, Beek van, Ouweneel. Watching the paint dry at work: psychometric examination of the Dutch Boredom Scale. Anxiety. 2013;26.
Nett UE, Goetz T, Daniels LM. What to do when feeling bored? Students’ strategies for coping with boredom. Learn Individ Differ. 2010;20(6):626–38.
Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W, Perry RP. Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Educ Psychol. 2002;37(2):91–105.
Acee TW, Kim H, Kim HJ, Kim JI, Chu HNR, Kim M, et al. Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2010;35(1):17–27.
Daschmann EC, Goetz T, Stupnisky RH. Testing the predictors of boredom at school: development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. Br J Educ Psychol. 2011;81(Pt 3):421–40.
Struk AA, Carriere JSA, Cheyne JA, Danckert J. A Short Boredom Proneness Scale: Development and Psychometric Properties. Assessment. 2017;24(3):346–59.
Hunter J, Dyer K, Cribbie R, Eastwood J. Exploring the Utility of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2015;32:1–10.
Struk AA, Carriere JSA, Cheyne JA, Danckert J. A Short Boredom Proneness Scale. Assessment. 2017;24(3):346–59.
Culp NA. The relations of two facets of boredom proneness with the major dimensions of personality. Personal Individ Differ. 2006;41(6):999–1007.
Martarelli CS, Bertrams A, Wolff W. Short Boredom Proneness Scale–German Version [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Jun 1]. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/t82956-000.
Peng J, Guo W, Zhao L, Han X, Wu S. Short Boredom Proneness Scale: Adaptation and validation of a Chinese version with college students. Soc Behav Personal Int J. 2020;48(2):1–8.
Martarelli CS, Baillifard A, Audrin C. A trait-based network perspective on the validation of the French Short Boredom Proneness Scale. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2023;39(6):390–9.
Dursun P, Tezer E. Turkish Adaptation of The Boredom Proneness Scale Short-Form. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2013;84:1550–4.
Measurement of boredom proneness. Russian adaptation of the BPS-SR. Natl Psychol J. 2020;13(1):40–9.
Maalouf R. Arabic Speaking Population In the World: How many people speak Arabic? [Internet]. Protranslate Blog. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 27]. https://www.protranslate.net/blog/en/arabic-speaking-population-in-the-world-2/.
Schielke S. Boredom and despair in rural Egypt. Contemp Islam. 2008;2(3):251–70.
Malaeb D, Akel M, Salameh P, Hallit S, Obeid S. Boredom Proneness, Loneliness, and Smartphone Addiction Among Lebanese Young Adults: The Mediating Role of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2022;24(6):43747.
Fekih-Romdhane F, Malaeb D, Fawaz M, Chammas N, Soufia M, Obeid S, et al. Translation and validation of the mindful eating behaviour scale in the Arabic language. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):120.
Hallit S, Obeid S, Haddad C, Hallit R, Akel M, Haddad G, et al. Construction of the Lebanese Anxiety Scale (LAS-10): a new scale to assess anxiety in adult patients. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2020;24(3):270–7.
Zeidan J, Hallit S, Akel M, Louragli I, Obeid S. Problematic smartphone use and affective temperaments among Lebanese young adults: scale validation and mediating role of self-esteem. BMC Psychol. 2021;9(1):136.
Kwon M, Kim DJ, Cho H, Yang S. The Smartphone Addiction Scale: Development and Validation of a Short Version for Adolescents. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e83558.
Awad E, Rogoza R, Gerges S, Obeid S, Hallit S, Association of Social Media Use Disorder and Orthorexia Nervosa Among Lebanese University Students. The Indirect Effect of Loneliness and Factor Structure of the Social Media Use Disorder Short Form and the Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scales. Psychol Rep. 2024;127(3):1065–84.
Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Arnold SE, Schneider JA, Kelly JF, Barnes LL, et al. Loneliness and risk of Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(2):234–40.
Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum Sample Size Recommendations for Conducting Factor Analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–68.
Hu Ltze, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.
Chen FF. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2007;14(3):464–504.
Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4–70.
Hair J, Sarstedt M, Ringle C, Gudergan S. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 2017.
Bai J, Mo K, Peng Y, Hao W, Qu Y, Lei X et al. The Relationship Between the Use of Mobile Social Media and Subjective Well-Being: The Mediating Effect of Boredom Proneness. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2021 Jan 13 [cited 2024 Jun 2];11. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568492/full.
Zhang L, Wang B, Xu Q, Fu C. The role of boredom proneness and self-control in the association between anxiety and smartphone addiction among college students: a multiple mediation model. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1201079.
Mathur U, Stevenson RJ. Television and eating: repetition enhances food intake. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1657.
Slattery EJ, O’Callaghan E, Ryan P, Fortune DG, McAvinue LP. Popular interventions to enhance sustained attention in children and adolescents: A critical systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;137:104633.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
24 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
07 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
17 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
10 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
08 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
07 Jun, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
06 Jun, 2024
Editor invited by journal
06 Jun, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
05 Jun, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
05 Jun, 2024
First submitted to journal
03 Jun, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Translation of the Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS) in Adults

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Boredom Scales

Short Boredom Proneness Scale

The present study

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1