Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Development and validation of a scale to measure media multitasking T

among adolescents: Results from China
Jiutong Luoa, , Meng Suna, Pui-sze Yeunga, Hui Lia,b
⁎

a
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
b
Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Media multitasking is increasingly common among youth, and it has thus attracted growing research interest.
Media multitasking This study aims to develop and validate a comprehensive scale to measure media multitasking (i.e., media
Scale development multitasking scale, MMS) that applies to adolescents. A sample of 1140 Chinese adolescents completed a
Chinese adolescents questionnaire to test its reliability, validity, and generality empirically. First, principal component analysis
Validity
(PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) both supported a three-factor structure of the media multitasking
Reliability
scale. The total variance explained in PCA was 54.77%, indicating satisfactory construct validity. Second, the
reliability analyses within each sub-dimension and for the total MMS also showed an adequate internal con-
sistency for the scale, ranging from 0.64 to 0.82. Third, the correlation between MMS and other instruments that
measured similar concepts revealed a good convergent validity for the scale, between 0.39 and 0.68. Thus, the
MMS is potentially a comprehensive scale for measuring media multitasking among adolescents in the digital
era.

1. Introduction
The prevalence of media use, as well as a specific type of engage-
ment – media multitasking, among children and youth has raised public
concerns about its possible negative effects and has also provided re-
search opportunities (de Calheiros Velozo and Stauder, 2018; Foehr,
2006; Ophir et al., 2009; Rideout et al., 2010; Roberts and Foehr,
2005). Studies found that American adolescents spent around 7.5 h per
day using media, and 29% of this time was spent on media multitasking
(Rideout et al., 2010), but more recently, the time was found to have
increased to 9 h on a given day, and the percentage of media multi-
tasking had doubled to around 60% (V. Rideout, 2015). About 92% of
the adolescents were online daily with 24% ‘almost constantly’ (Lenhart
et al., 2015). Cell phones, and particularly smartphones, are almost
ubiquitous among young people, with three-quarters of adolescents
reported having access to a smartphone and 30% owning a basic cell
phone themselves (Lenhart et al., 2015).
The possible negative effects of media multitasking were pre-
liminarily explored by comparing the cognitive functioning and well-
being between heavy/high media multitaskers (HMMs) who scored one
standard deviation (SD) more than the mean, and the light/low media
multitaskers (LMMs) who scored one SD less than the mean (e.g., Ophir
et al., 2009; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013). HMMs have been found to
perform worse than LMMs in terms of attention, working memory, task-
switching tasks (e.g., Ophir et al., 2009; Wiradhany and Nieuwenstein,
2017), psychological factors (such as sensation seeking and impul-
siveness) and well-being (e.g., Becker et al., 2013; Sanbonmatsu et al.,
2013), but no relationship between media multitasking and well-being
or psychological factors has been confirmed (Shih, 2013). In addition,
both HMMs and LMMs performed well on a reading span task that
tested their working memory ability (Minear et al., 2013). Studies ex-
amining the impact of media multitasking have thus produced mixed
results (for a review, see Uncapher et al., 2017).
China is an ideal arena for such research, as it has the second largest
youth population in the world (269 million; Das Gupta et al., 2014) and
it provided 85.3% of young people with Internet accessibility in 2015
(CNNIC, 2016). The few studies in the context of China (e.g., Xu et al.,
2016; Yang and Zhu, 2016) have focused either on the predictors of
media multitasking behavior among Chinese adolescents (Yang and
Zhu, 2016) or the impact of media multitasking on the social and
psychological well-being of Chinese university students (Xu et al.,
2016). Little research has explored the long-term impact on learning,
cognition and neural and social development in Chinese adolescents,
possibly due to the lack of a reliable and contextually appropriate in-
strument to measure media multitasking behavior among adolescents
(Baumgartner et al., 2017; Wilmer et al., 2017). This study aims to fill

⁎
Corresponding author at: Room 219, Runme Shaw Building, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.
E-mail address: jtluo@connect.hku.hk (J. Luo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.044
Received 28 August 2018; Received in revised form 24 October 2018; Accepted 25 October 2018
Available online 26 October 2018
0190-7409/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Luo et al.
this gap by developing and validating a media multitasking scale for
Chinese adolescents.
1.1. Measuring media multitasking
There is no rigorous definition of media multitasking in the litera-
ture. Operationally, it has been defined as people simultaneously en-
gaging in multiple media tasks (Foehr, 2006; Ophir et al., 2009; Wallis,
2010). Technically, Ophir et al. (2009) developed a media multitasking
questionnaire (MMQ) to calculate a media multitasking index (MMI)
among university students in their study. This has become the most
frequently used measurement of media multitasking, but it has several
limitations.
First, although the media activities included in their questionnaire
were common in daily life, some of the combinations of them were not.
For example, students were rarely watching TV or using the Internet
while playing computer games, and their media multitasking extended
beyond different media into activities such as walking, eating and
reading (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2014; Lim and Shim, 2016; Pea et al.,
2012). More appropriate dimensions and items should thus be explored
and included. Second, no psychometric qualities have been provided in
the MMQ (e.g., Alzahabi and Becker, 2013; Minear et al., 2013;
Wiradhany and Nieuwenstein, 2017), or measurements of smartphone
media multitasking, for example (Lim and Shim, 2016). Their reliability
and validity must be established. Third, the MMQ is a complex ques-
tionnaire that is neither friendly nor efficient for participants or re-
searchers. For example, it has 133 items to estimate the time spent on
each media activity to include all possible combinations of media ac-
tivities. This increases participant burden and reduces the response rate
(Rolstad et al., 2011) and in turn, increases the cost of the survey. Some
studies have used a modified and shortened version of MMQ containing
around 50 items, but this may not have construct validity or internal
consistency (e.g., Pea et al., 2012). In addition, as this shortened form
of MMQ was used with different populations, their MMI scores were not
comparable, and thus the findings could not be applied to other po-
pulations.
To address this research gap, some scholars have attempted to im-
prove our understanding of media multitasking, such as Baumgartner
et al. (2014), who constructed it as a concept including both media and
non-media activities. Lim and Shim (2016) assessed media multitasking
through three sub-types of media multitasking behavior: with a
smartphone and with non-media activities (e.g., housework, driving,
eating, etc.), with a smartphone and with media activities (e.g., tele-
vision, audio media, games media, etc.) and within a single device (i.e.,
a smartphone). The composite score was interpreted as the general
media multitasking score. The measurement was further developed on a
7-point Likert scale. However, there was no internal consistency re-
ported on either the sub-types or the whole scale of smartphone mul-
titasking. Baumgartner et al. (2017) developed a shortened version of
the media multitasking measurement from the extensive MMQ and
established concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Studies on
multitasking interaction with smart devices have also provided evi-
dence, with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, on the psy-
chological aspects of multitasking (Zhang and Rau, 2016). However,
from our perspective, any empirical research, particularly in the Chi-
nese context, requires a comprehensive instrument to measure media
multitasking behavior among adolescents.
1.2. The present study
As the current measurements of media multitasking have limitations
and could lead to inconsistency in results (Wilmer et al., 2017), this
study aims to develop and validate an easy-to-use scale to measure
media multitasking behavior among adolescents. First, the construct
validity and internal consistency of the media multitasking scale is as-
sessed. Second, the convergent validity is evaluated through analyzing
378
Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383
its correlations with other relevant measurements, such as a media
multitasking questionnaire (Ophir et al., 2009), a shortened media
multitasking measurement (Baumgartner et al., 2017), smartphone
multitasking scale (Lim and Shim, 2016) and communication-specific
multitasking scale (Kushniryk, 2008; as cited in Błachnio and
Przepiorka, 2016). Third, it provides a brief descriptive analysis of each
item and sub-dimension and the total score of the scale to depict the
current media multitasking status of the Chinese adolescents. Last, this
paper also reports on media multitasking prevalence among Chinese
adolescents.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
In this study, 1140 11- to 18-year-old students, with 52.8% girls
(n = 602), from 4 secondary schools in Shenzhen, Mainland China,
participated in the paper-based survey. The mean age of the sample was
14.78 (SD = 1.42). All participants finished the media multitasking
scale developed by the researchers, while around 420 of the partici-
pants were randomly chosen and asked to fill both the media multi-
tasking scale and other measurements that also measured media mul-
titasking or similar concepts. Finally, 84 completed the questionnaire
and the short media multitasking measurement, 119 completed the
smartphone multitasking scale and 121 the communication-specific
multitasking scale.
2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. Media Multitasking Scale
The present study aimed to develop a Media Multitasking Scale
(MMS) and then test it among adolescent students in a Chinese context.
Items were developed according to previous studies, including media
multitasking either across two media activities or across media and
non-media activities (e.g., Lim and Shim, 2016; Ophir et al., 2009). A
common scenario is that young students are engaged in more than two
tasks in their daily lives. However, as discussed in the previous section,
it is nearly impossible to cover all these combinations in a user-friendly
questionnaire. For the scale in this study, items were included that
asked to what extent they could focus on either the media or non-media
activities at hand rather than being distracted by another media ac-
tivity, which can then account for this problem.
This study included (1) seven media activities: listening to music,
watching TV/video, playing games, checking and sending messages,
studying on digital devices, making phone calls and having fun on di-
gital devices (e.g., surfing the Internet, checking social media accounts,
having fun with interesting apps, etc.); and (2) four non-media activ-
ities: eating, studying (e.g., doing homework, reading), face-to-face
communication and walking. These media and non-media activities are
all selected from previous studies that have been widely cited in this
research area (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2014; Kushniryk, 2008; Lim and
Shim, 2016; Luo and Liang, 2018; Ophir et al., 2009; Pea et al., 2012).
Accordingly, 116 possible media multitasking behaviors (or items) were
thus proposed from the initial exploratory combination of these media
and non-media activities. The item pool then went through two rounds
of revisions done by an expert who had experience of adolescents'
media usage. Some students and their parents were also invited to pilot
the questionnaire and to give feedback and suggestions for improve-
ment. A 50-item version MMS was finalized and approved by the re-
search team. All items were initially developed in Chinese and then
translated to English by two researchers fluent in both Chinese and
English. Two external experts experienced in measurement develop-
ment and media multitasking research were consulted to check the final
version of the measurement. The items were measured by a 5-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = ‘Never,’ 5 = ‘Always’).
J. Luo et al. Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383

2.2.2. Other related instruments (TLI) should both be > 0.90, and the Root Mean Square Error of Ap-
The Media Multitasking Questionnaire (MMQ) is a tool for generating proximation (RMSEA) and standardized residual mean root (SRMR)
an index of users' media multitasking behavior (i.e., a media multi- should both be < 0.08. These were acceptable in this analysis (Hu and
tasking index, or MMI) based on a given formula (Ophir et al., 2009). In Bentler, 1999).
this study, some revisions were made: 1) the media activity ‘email’ was After the structure of the MMS was determined, descriptive and
deleted from both primary and sub-tasks because it is not frequently reliability analyses were conducted on both datasets. Finally, a corre-
used among adolescents; 2) two media activities were combined (i.e., lational analysis was also used to test the internal consistency within
‘social media texting’ and ‘message’), and the media activity ‘using the MMS and the convergent validity in which the MMS score was
social media websites’ was added to both primary and sub-tasks; 3) compared with other measurements of similar concepts from previous
participants were asked to estimate the average number of hours of use studies.
per day rather than per week, to make it easier for them. The final
version of MMQ thus contains 11 media activities. Participants were
3. Results
asked to estimate the time they spent on the activities and state how
often they engaged in one media activity while also doing another,
3.1. Principle components analysis (PCA)
based on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = ‘Never’, 2 = ‘a little of time’,
3 = ‘some of the time’, 4 = ‘most of the time’). By using a matrix de-
Before moving to the PCA, sample adequacy and Bartlett Sphericity
sign, the students go through all possible combinations of two media
tests were performed on the first half of the dataset to determine
activities. The mean of MMI was 1.70 (SD = 1.41) among the partici-
whether the data was appropriate for factor analysis. For the PCA data,
pants who finished MMQ in this study. A score for the media multi-
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.82, and Bartlett's Test of
tasking measurement-short (MMM-S) was also calculated from this
Sphericity was also significant (χ2 = 2388.39, p < .0005). The results
dataset, following Baumgartner et al. (2017). This short version con-
revealed that it was appropriate to conduct PCA based on the data.
tains nine items selected from the original MMQ. The internal con-
From the PCA, a three-factor model was produced with 14 items,
sistency for the MMM-S was 0.88, and the mean was 1.84 (SD = 0.65).
which was consistent with the development procedure of the mea-
The correlation between MMI and MMM-S was 0.73 (p < .001).
surement. There were 36 items deleted in this stage, and the criteria to
Smartphone Multitasking (SMM) contains three types of multitasking
make this decision has been provided in the previous section, i.e., factor
activities: media and non-media multitasking, cross-media multitasking
loading for each item should be above 0.60, and no cross-loading
and multitasking within a single device (Lim and Shim, 2016). A
should be above 0.30. Therefore, the result was accepted for the next
slightly modified version was used, which contains 41 items and is
step analysis. The three types of media multitasking were multitasking
suitable for adolescent students, and was translated it into Chinese.
across two media activities (MAM), multitasking with media and non-
They were asked how often they simultaneously use their smartphone
media activities (MMNM) and concentration without multitasking
while carrying out the given activities, based on a 5-point Likert scale
(CWM). The total variance explained was 54.77%, with MAM ex-
(1 = ‘Never,’ 5 = ‘Always’). The internal consistency for the SMM was
plaining 29.09%, MMNM explaining 8.96% and CWM explaining
0.95, and the mean of SMM was 2.00 (SD = 0.59) among the partici-
16.72%. The factor loadings for the items in each factor ranged from
pants.
0.63 to 0.79 (see Table 1).
The Communication Specific Multitasking (CSM) scale included 19
items and was adapted into Chinese from the scale originally developed
by Kushniryk (2008; as cited in Błachnio and Przepiorka, 2016). Some 3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
revisions were made to make it more understandable to adolescents
(e.g., ‘I like talking on the phone while I am studying’). Students were For the CFA analysis, the second half of the data was used to confirm
asked to respond using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘Never,’ 5 = ‘Al- the three-factor structure that the PCA result suggested. Although some
ways’). The internal consistency for the CSM was 0.82, and the mean of studies have found that MMI was normally distributed among partici-
CSM was 2.81 (SD = 0.52) among the participants who filled this CSM pants (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2017; Ophir et al., 2009), others
scale.
Table 1
2.3. Data cleaning and analysis methods Values for PCA results of MMS.
Item Factor loading
After receiving the questionnaires from the participants, all answers
were inputted into the SPSS 22.0 for further analysis. A small propor- MAM MMNM CWM
tion of missing data (< 2.6%) was replaced by the mean of that item. MAM01 0.75
This study used psychometric analysis methods, including Principal MAM02 0.74
Components Analysis (PCA) with Promax rotation and Confirmatory MAM03 0.70
Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the factorial validity of the media multi- MAM04 0.78
MAM05 0.77
tasking scale. The data were randomly divided into two equal samples,
MMNM01 0.63
one for PCA analysis and one for CFA analysis, and each contained 570 MMNM02 0.64
cases to be performed the proposed analyses separately. The PCA is a MMNM03 0.79
variable reduction technique that allows us to identify the factor MMNM04 0.70
structure among the data. It enables us to use the original score because CWM01⁎ 0.67
CWM02⁎ 0.73
an item in the present study can measure one of the sub-types of media CWM03⁎ 0.74
multitasking behaviors among users. The criteria for deciding whether CWM04⁎ 0.79
to retain a factor or not is that the eigenvalue should be above 1 and the CWM05⁎ 0.77
scree plot does not change significantly (i.e., similar to a straight line). Eigenvalue 4.07 1.25 2.34
Explained Variance 29.09% 8.96% 16.72%
The factor loading for each item should be above 0.60, and no cross-
Total Explained Variance 54.77%
loading should be above 0.30 (Lu et al., 2018). CFA was used to help
confirm whether the data fit a hypothesized model from the previous Note. ⁎ Reverse-coded; MAM = Multitasking across two media,
analysis results (i.e., the PCA result). Regarding the criteria, indicators MMNM = Multitasking with media and non-media, and CWM = Concentration
including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index without multitasking.

379
J. Luo et al.
Fig. 1. First-order CFA of MMS. Model fit: χ2 = 181.867, df = 74, p < .001,
CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.040.
reported that it appeared to be skewed to the left among adolescents
(e.g., Cain et al., 2016). Based on this evidence, it would not be ap-
propriate to assume that media multitasking will be normally dis-
tributed among the adolescent population. Thus the MLR estimator –
maximum likelihood with robust standard errors using a numerical
integration algorithm – was used to account for the non-normality in
the current data in Mplus (7.4).
The first order CFA results confirmed the three-factor structure
suggested by PCA as a model adequately fitted to the data,
χ2 = 181.867, df = 74, p < .001, CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.925,
RMSEA = 0.051 (90% CI [0.041, 0.060]), SRMR = 0.040 (see Fig. 1).
The p value was expected to be non-significant to indicate a good model
fit, but the χ2 test was very sensitive to sample size. With the other good
model fit indicators (i.e., CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR), the model was still
acceptable (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). A second-order CFA was
then conducted to confirm that these three factors could be considered
380
Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383
Fig. 2. Second-order CFA of MMS. Model fit: χ2 = 181.867, df = 74, p < .001,
CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.040.
as indicators under a high-order construct using the current data. Si-
milarly, the results supported that the second-order CFA also produced
an adequate fit model, χ2 = 181.867, df = 74, p < .001, CFI = 0.939,
TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.051 (90% CI [0.041, 0.060]), SRMR = 0.040.
All of the factor loadings were significant and ranged from 0.41 to 0.81
(all ps < 0.001, see Fig. 2).
3.3. Descriptive and reliability analysis
The results of the descriptive and reliability analyses of the datasets
are listed below (see Table 2). For the MAM, the mean was 1.99
(SD = 0.83) for the PCA dataset and 1.95 (SD = 0.82) for the CFA
dataset. The means of the specific items ranged from 1.72 (SD = 1.03)
to 2.17 (SD = 1.1.4) for the PCA and 1.70 (SD = 0.99) to 2.15
(SD = 1.14) for the CFA. For the MMNM, the mean was 2.47
(SD = 0.81) in the PCA and 2.50 (SD = 0.80) for the CFA. The means of
the specific items ranged from 2.13 (SD = 1.07) and 2.84 (SD = 1.22)
for the PCA dataset and 2.16 (SD = 1.04) to 2.85 (SD = 1.21) for the
CFA dataset. For the CWM, the mean was 2.37 (SD = 0.93) for the PCA
and 2.43 (SD = 0.89) for the CFA. The means of the specific items
ranged from 2.24 (SD = 1.27) to 2.60 (SD = 1.20) for the PCA dataset
and 2.32 (SD = 1.15) to 2.66 (SD = 1.15) for the CFA dataset. Finally,
the total score of the MMS was 2.26 (SD = 0.62) for the PCA dataset
J. Luo et al. Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383

Table 2 4. Discussion
Item means, standard deviations, Cronbach's Alpha of PCA and CFA datasets.
Items PCA CFA The main purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale
(see Appendix A) to measure media multitasking behavior among
Mean SD Cronbach's Alpha Mean SD Cronbach's Alpha adolescents. Consistent with the evidence (e.g., Baumgartner et al.,
(α) (α) 2014; Lim and Shim, 2016; Ophir et al., 2009; Pea et al., 2012), the
MAM 1.99 0.83 0.81 1.95 0.82 0.82 operational definition of media multitasking was extended from its
MAM01 2.17 1.14 2.15 1.14 literal meaning to a more robust one that included both media and non-
MAM02 2.04 1.16 2.00 1.13 media activities. Therefore, this study has implications towards a
MAM03 1.72 1.03 1.70 0.99 comprehensive understanding of media multitasking, that is, media
MAM04 2.13 1.09 2.08 1.13
multitasking refers to users engage in different activities at the same
MAM05 1.90 1.07 1.80 1.02
MMNM 2.47 0.81 0.65 2.50 0.80 0.64 time or frequently change from one to the other, which might contain at
MMNM01 2.55 1.24 2.65 1.25 least one media activity.
MMNM02 2.84 1.22 2.85 1.21
MMNM03 2.36 1.12 2.35 1.12
4.1. The psychometric properties of MMS
MMNM04 2.13 1.07 2.16 1.04
CWM 2.37 0.93 0.80 2.43 0.89 0.78
CWM01⁎ 2.40 1.26 2.36 1.25 In this study, the three-factor model was selected as the best for
CWM02⁎ 2.30 1.28 2.47 1.30 describing Chinese adolescents' media multitasking behavior. The first
CWM03⁎ 2.60 1.20 2.66 1.15 factor of multitasking across two media activities was adopted from the
CWM04⁎ 2.33 1.22 2.32 1.18
landmark work published in Proceedings of the National Academy of
CWM05⁎ 2.24 1.27 2.33 1.27
MMS total 2.26 0.62 0.80 2.28 0.62 0.81 Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) by Ophir et al. (2009).
Media multitasking is regarded as a type of behavior that occurs during
Note. ⁎
Reverse-coded; MAM = Multitasking across two media, media use and can refer to the growing opportunities the young gen-
MMNM = Multitasking with media and non-media, and CWM = Concentration eration have to engage in multiple media activities at the same time.
without multitasking. Although out of all the media activity items in this study there could
make many combinations, five were identified as the most efficient
and 2.28 (SD = 1.27) for the CFA dataset. items to measure this dimension (e.g., while watching TV/video, I
Regarding reliability, the Cronbach's Alpha (α) for the MMS is 0.80 check or send a message). The second factor is multitasking involving
for the PCA dataset and 0.81 for the CFA dataset. The reliability of all media and non-media activities, based on the empirical findings that
sub-dimensions was between 0.64 and 0.82, and thus indicated good had extended the definition of media multitasking to include both
reliability for the MMS. As indicated by other studies (see Rozgonjuk media and non-media activities (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2014; Lim and
et al., 2016), the minimum Cronbach's α should not below 0.57. Shim, 2016; Pea et al., 2012). The MMS included four items to assess
Based on the whole original dataset (n = 1140), 60.3% of the par- this dimension (e.g., while eating, I watch TV/video). Finally, the third
ticipants scored higher than 2.00 on the whole MMS – which means factor, concentration without multitasking, was included in the three-
they at least engage in media multitasking activities “sometimes” (or factor model to address the other multitasking possibilities during a
more than “seldom”) in their daily life. The percentages for MAM, task. This dimension emphasized the extent to which people can focus
MMNM, and CWM were 37.0%, 63.7%, and 58.3% respectively. on daily life tasks and ignore irrelevant distractions from media activ-
ities (e.g., I can focus on eating without getting distracted by media). In
3.4. Correlational analysis addition, it also included one item that described to what extent people
could focus on media activities without doing other activities, including
The results of the correlational analysis are provided in Table 3. This both media and non-media activities, i.e., I can focus on talking to one
shows that the correlation between MMS and its three sub-dimensions person on the phone/video call without doing other things.
ranged from 0.70 to 0.77 (all ps < .001). The internal correlations As the first to address Chinese adolescents' media multitasking by
among its sub-dimensions were from 0.21 to 0.46 (all ps < .001). In including media and non-media activities, this study has provided sa-
addition, MMS was also significantly correlated with MMI (r = 0.56, tisfactory empirical evidence about the factor structure, internal con-
p < .001), MMM-S (r = 0.54, p < .001), SMM (r = 0.68, p < .001) sistency and convergent validity of the MMS. First, the PCA and CFA
and DLM (r = 0.39, p < .001). The moderate to high correlations results both suggested satisfactory construct validity. Second, the re-
(ranged from 0.39 to 0.68) indicated a good convergent validity for the liability results showed the sub-dimensions, and the total media mul-
MMS. titasking scale all have acceptable internal consistency. Third, the high
correlations between the MMS and other widely used measurements
Table 3
indicated that the MMS had a good convergent validity. Last, the de-
Correlational analysis among MMS (n = 1140), MMI (n = 84), MMM-S scriptive analysis results of the MMS were also comparable and con-
(n = 84), SMM (n = 119) and CSM (n = 121). sistent with previous studies (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2017; Rideout,
2015) and could help to measure media multitasking among a different
1 2 3 MMI MMM-S SMM CSM
population in future studies. In conclusion, the MMS has good psy-
MMS – 0.56
⁎⁎⁎
0.54 ⁎⁎⁎
0.68
⁎⁎⁎
0.3- chometric properties and could be used to evaluate adolescents' media
9⁎⁎⁎ multitasking behavior.
MAM 0.77⁎⁎⁎ –
MMNM 0.70⁎⁎⁎ 0.46⁎⁎⁎ –
4.2. The prevalence of media multitasking behavior among Chinese
CWM 0.72⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎
adolescents
Note. MMS = Media multitasking scale, MAM = Multitasking across two
media, MMNM = Multitasking with media and non-media, Interestingly, the descriptive analysis results indicate that Chinese
CWM = Concentration without multitasking, MMI = Media multitasking index, adolescents in this study tended to score highest on their engagement in
MMM-S = Media multitasking measurement short; SMM = Smartphone multi- multitasking with media and non-media activities. They also score
tasking, and CSM = Communication-specific multitasking. higher on the dimension of concentration without multitasking. These
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001. findings empirically support the conclusion that these two dimensions

381
J. Luo et al. Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383

contribute to a more precise measure of media multitasking behavior PhD project in early stage. In addition, we are very thankful for all the
than measurements that only included multitasking within media ac- students who took part in this project, and also extending our grate-
tivities (e.g., Ophir et al., 2009). However, it may also suggest future fulness to all the school members who have offered their kind help in
directions in this research field, regarding media interference in daily the process of data collection.
life activities and distraction problems, and their effect on the younger
generation. Studies have indicated that multitasking while doing Appendix A. Media Multitasking Scale (14 items)
homework or in class can negatively affect students' academic perfor-
mance (e.g., Junco, 2012; Lau, 2017), and around 60.3% of participants 1 = ‘Never’, 2 = ‘Seldom’, 3 = ‘Sometimes’, 4 = ‘Often’,
reported more than ‘seldom’ experience of media multitasking. Simi- 5 = ‘Always’.
larly, it has been reported that media multitasking prevalence was Multitasking across two media (MAM)
approaching 60% among American adolescents (Rideout, 2015).
It appears that Chinese and American adolescents shared the same 1. While watching TV/video, I check or send (voice) messages.
percentage of media multitasking prevalence, although direct compar- 一边看电视/视频,一边查收或发送短信(文字或语音)。
isons are not possible because of measurement issues. However, there is 2. While watching TV/video, I play on digital devices (e.g., surf the
no national report on the media multitasking prevalence among Internet, check social media accounts, play with interesting apps,
Chinese adolescents (CNNIC, 2008, 2016). The findings of this study etc.).
provide important additions to the literature about media multitasking 一边看电视/视频,一边用电子产品娱乐消遣(如上网,使用社交网站、
prevalence among Chinese adolescents (e.g., Xu et al., 2016; Yang and 玩有趣的软件等)。
Zhu, 2016). Media multitasking is gradually becoming a significant 3. While playing games, I check or send (voice) messages.
problem among adolescents, and it requires further large-scale, long- 一边玩游戏,一边查收或发送短信(文字或语音)。
itudinal and even cross-cultural validation and comparison studies. This 4. While checking or sending (voice) messages, I play on digital de-
study has prepared a reliable, validated and easy-to-use instrument for vices (e.g., surf the Internet, check social media accounts, play with
these future studies. interesting apps, etc.).
一边查收或发送短信(文字或语音),一边用电子产品娱乐消遣(如上
5. Limitations and conclusions 网、使用社交网站、玩有趣的软件等)。
5. While making phone/video calls, I play on digital devices (e.g., surf
As the first stage of a larger research project, this study is pre- the Internet, check social media accounts, play with interesting
liminary and has some limitations. First, the sample of this study only apps, etc.).
included adolescents from one Chinese city, and thus may not be re- 一边打电话(或视频)聊天,一边用电子产品娱乐消遣(如上网、使用社
presentative of the whole population of adolescents in this city, or in 交网站、玩有趣的软件等)。
China. Therefore caution is required when generalizing the findings.
Future studies should improve the sampling method and recruit parti- Multitasking with media and non-media (MMNM)
cipants from different cultural backgrounds and age groups (e.g., uni-
versity students) to analyze the invariance of the factorial structure of 6. While eating, I watch TV/video.
the media multitasking scale. Second, the instrument only assessed 一边吃饭,一边看电视/视频。
media multitasking through a self-reported questionnaire. Future stu- 7. While studying (e.g., doing homework, reading), I listen to music.
dies should also use other methods (e.g., authentic behavior data on 一边学习(如作业、阅读),一边听音乐。
media devices) to measure media multitasking. Third, this study has 8. While talking to someone face-to-face (e.g., friends, family), I watch
provided psychometric evidence indicating the good property of the TV/video.
instrument, but studies should also examine other types of validity and 一边跟朋友或家人说话,一边看电视/视频。
the test-retest reliability of the scale. Last, this study only reported a 9. While talking to someone face-to-face (e.g., friends, family), I play
preliminary result of media multitasking prevalence among Chinese with a smartphone or other digital devices (e.g., check or send
adolescents. Future studies should also analyze the timescale of this (voice) messages, make phone calls, have fun, etc.).
phenomenon among media users. 一边跟朋友或家人说话,一边玩手机等电子产品(如查收或发送短信、
In conclusion, the results of the present study support the media 打电话、娱乐消遣等)。
multitasking scale as being an appropriate instrument to measure media
multitasking behavior among Chinese adolescents. Theoretically, it has Concentration without multitasking (CWM)
extended the operational definition of media multitasking by including
both media and non-media activities with empirical evidence. In ad- 10. I can focus on talking to one person on the phone/video call
dition to providing an integrated view of media multitasking behavior, without doing other things. (R)
the findings can also increase public attention and facilitate further 我可以专注于跟人打电话(或视频),不用同时做其他事情。
examinations of the effects of media multitasking behavior with a 11. I can focus on eating without getting distracted by media. (R)
broader scope. Practically, it could provide a reliable tool for estimating 我可以专心吃饭,不被电子产品打扰。
media multitasking behavior and could be further used to explore the 12. I can focus on studying (e.g., doing homework, reading) without
effect of media multitasking on users, particularly the young. With the getting distracted by media. (R)
evidence from other literature, the measurements regarding this issue 我可以专心学习(如作业、阅读),不被电子产品打扰。
can be improved and effective strategies to cope with the impact of 13. I can focus on talking face-to-face with my friends and families
media multitasking on learning, cognition, neural and social develop- without getting distracted by media. (R)
ment can be developed. This study is just the beginning of a longer-term 我可以专心与朋友和家人谈话,不被电子产品打扰。
pursuit. 14. I can focus on walking without getting distracted by media (e.g.,
smartphone). (R)
Acknowledgement 我可以专心走路,不去看手机等电子产品。

First of all, we would like to dedicate this paper to the late Associate References
Professor Jingyan Lu at Faculty of Education, the University of Hong
Kong. She was the primary supervisor of the first author and guided his Alzahabi, R., & Becker, M. W. (2013). The association between media multitasking, task-

382
J. Luo et al.
switching, and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human
Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1485–1495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031208.
Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., Van Der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The
relationship between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431614523133.
Baumgartner, S. E., Lemmens, J. S., Weeda, W. D., & Huizinga, M. (2017). Measuring
media multitasking: Development of a short measure of media multitasking for
adolescents. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1864-1105/a000167.
Becker, M. M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is asso-
ciated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 16(2), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0291.
Błachnio, A., & Przepiorka, A. (2016). Dysfunction of self-regulation and self-control in
Facebook addiction. Psychiatric Quarterly, 87(3), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11126-015-9403-1.
Cain, M. S., Leonard, J. A., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Finn, A. S. (2016). Media multitasking in
adolescence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1932–1941. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13423-016-1036-3.
CNNIC (2008). Research Report on Young Chinese's Internet Behaviors for 2007 (in
Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/200906/
P020120709345345235588.pdf.
CNNIC (2016). Reseach Report on Young Chinese's Internet Behaviors for 2015 (in
Chinese) Retrieved from http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/qsnbg/201608/
P020160812393489128332.pdf.
Das Gupta, M., Engelman, R., Levy, J., Luchsinger, G., Merrick, T., & Rosen, J. E. (2014).
The Power of 1,8 billion Adolescents. Youth and the Transformation of the Future.
Retrieved from http://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/EN-SWOP14-
Report_FINAL-web.pdf.
de Calheiros Velozo, J., & Stauder, J. E. A. (2018). Exploring social media use as a
composite construct to understand its relation to mental health: A pilot study on
adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 91(June), 398–402. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.039.
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media Multitasking among American Youth: Prevalence, Predictors, and
Pairings. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from
http://kff.org/other/media-multitasking-among-american-youth-prevalence-
predictors/.
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.
Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031.
Kushniryk, A. (2008). The development of a communication specific multitasking measurement
instrument. Unpublished Paper1–28.
Lau, W. W. F. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the
academic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 68,
286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043.
Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, L., & Parker, K. (2015). Teens,
social media and technology overview 2015: Smartphones facilitate shifts in com-
munication landscape for teens. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/
04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015.
Lim, S., & Shim, H. (2016). Who multitasks on smartphones? Smartphone multitaskers'
motivations and personality traits. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
19(3), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0225.
Lu, J., Luo, J., Liang, L., & Jing, M. (2018). Measuring adolescents' social media behavior
outside and inside of school: Development and validation of two scales. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118786851.
Luo, J., & Liang, L. (2018). Exploring the relationships among university students' media
multitasking, personality and academic performance: A quantitative study.
International Scientific Conference: Lodging the Theory in Social and Educational Practice
383
Children and Youth Services Review 95 (2018) 377–383
(pp. 1–10). .
Minear, M., Brasher, F., McCurdy, M., Lewis, J., & Younggren, A. (2013). Working
memory, fluid intelligence, and impulsiveness in heavy media multitaskers.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1274–1281. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-
013-0456-6.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37),
15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., ... Zhou, M. (2012).
Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being
among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327–336. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0027030.
Rideout, V. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common
Sense Media.. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-
common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8
to 18 Year-Olds. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved
from https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf.
Roberts, D. F., & Foehr, U. G. (2005). Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8–18 Years-olds.
Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from https://
kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/generation-m-media-in-the-
lives-of-8-18-year-olds-report.pdf.
Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is
shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14(8), 1101–1108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003.
Rozgonjuk, D., Rosenvald, V., Janno, S., & Täht, K. (2016). Developing a shorter version
of the Estonian Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale (E-SAPS18). Cyberpsychology,
(4), 10. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-4.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who
multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, im-
pulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS One, (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0054402.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.
1002/0470010940.
Shih, S. I. (2013). A null relationship between media multitasking and well-being. PLoS
One, 8(5), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064508.
Uncapher, M. R., Lin, L., Rosen, L. D., Kirkorian, H. L., Baron, N. S., Bailey, K., ...
Uncapher, M. (2017). Media multitasking and cognitive, psychological, neural, and
learning differences. Pediatrics, 140(S2), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-
1758D.
Wallis, C. (2010). The impacts of media multitasking on children's learning and development:
Report from a research seminar. New York, NY.
Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition : A
review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cog-
nitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(April), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00605.
Wiradhany, W., & Nieuwenstein, M. R. (2017). Cognitive control in media multitaskers:
Two replication studies and a meta-analysis. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics,
79(8), 2620–2641. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1408-4.
Xu, S., Wang, Z., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2015.08.040.
Yang, X., & Zhu, L. (2016). Predictors of media multitasking in Chinese adolescents.
International Journal of Psychology, 51(6), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.
12187.
Zhang, Y., & Rau, P.-L. P. (2016). An exploratory study to measure excessive involvement
in multitasking interaction with smart devices. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 19(6), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0079.