The increasing use of digital devices in everyday life has raised concerns about unhealthy patterns of digital engagement and the growing need for measures that assess digital well-being beyond addiction-focused approaches. The present study developed and validated the Digital Detox Need Assessment Scale (DDNAS), a 30-item self-report instrument intended to assess perceived digital detox needs among young adults. The scale was developed based on self-regulation theory, the I-PACE model, compensatory internet use theory, and digital well-being literature. Six dimensions were identified: Behavioural Patterns of Overuse, Psychological Distress, Social Influence and Pressure, Perceived Impact on Well-Being, Self-Regulation Difficulties, and Awareness of the Need for Digital Detox. An initial pool of 90 items was created and pilot tested with 50 young adults to examine item clarity and suitability. The final version of the scale was administered to 1,009 participants aged between 18 and 30 years. Exploratory factor analysis supported a six-factor structure explaining 47.90% of the total variance (KMO = 0.956; Bartlett's test, p < .001). The overall scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .935), while subscale reliability coefficients ranged from.751 to.837. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable model fit ( χ ²/df = 3.027, CFI = .935, TLI = .927, RMSEA = .045, PCLOSE = .998). Composite reliability values ranged from.79 to.85. Convergent validity was supported for most dimensions; however, Behavioural Patterns of Overuse and Social Influence and Pressure demonstrated AVE values slightly below the recommended threshold of.50. Discriminant validity was examined using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and was generally supported across constructs. Normative data were also established to facilitate interpretation and practical application of the scale. Overall, the findings suggest that the DDNAS is a reliable and valid measure for assessing digital detox needs among young adults and may be useful in research, psychoeducational programmes, and digital well-being intervention settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sneha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: