Back

Reliability and construct validity of the Technology Device Interference Scale in a sample of children and parents

Schumacher, A.; Tu, E.; Cost, K. T.; Baribeau, D.; Birken, C. S.; Charach, A.; Kelley, E.; Burton, C.; Maguire, J. L.; Nicolson, R.; Frei, J.; Trinari, E.; Crosbie, J.; Korczak, D.

2026-06-16 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.06.13.26355571 medRxiv
Show abstract

There is increasing interest in parent-child technoference: the interference with personal interactions caused by technology devices. This study examined the reliability and construct validity of the Technology Device Interference Scale (TDIS) to measure technoference in a sample of Canadian parents and children. Parents (n=883) and children (n=376) were recruited from clinical and community settings and completed the TDIS for their own and family member technoference over three timepoints (T1=2023, T2=2024, T3=2025). TDIS internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity were assessed using Cronbachs alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient, and confirmatory factor analysis, respectively. The TDIS showed good internal consistency and adequate to good construct validity when used by children to report on their own technoference (all >.70; CFI>.95, TLI>.95, RMSEA<.07) or their parents technoference (all >.70; CFI>.95, TLI>.90, RMSEA[&le;].11). The TDIS had low to acceptable internal consistency and poor model fit for parent report of their own technoference ( range: .63 - .66; CFI<.95, TLI[&le;].80, RMSEA[&ge;].14) or their childs technoference ( range: .56 - .63; CFI<.95, TLI[&le;].85, RMSEA[&ge;].11), factor loadings for the items "phone" and "tablet" were low (phone<.50, tablet<.50). Test-retest reliability was moderate for all reports. The TDIS demonstrated good reliability and construct validity of child-reported technoference. Parent-reported technoference demonstrated lower reliability and construct validity, with "phone" and "tablet" weakly associated with the other technological devices. Future studies should distinguish between handheld vs. non-handheld devices when investigating parent-reported technoference.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.6%
2
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.6%
3
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
4
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.6%
6
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
7
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
8
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.5%
10
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
12
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
13
Microbiology
65 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
14
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Journal of Neurogenetics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
17
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
18
Consciousness and Cognition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
BMJ Paediatrics Open
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
Public Health
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
24
Translational Vision Science & Technology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
25
Frontiers in Psychiatry
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
Psychological Medicine
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%