Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Oct 25;13(10):e0205384.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205384. eCollection 2018.

Permanently online and permanently connected: Development and validation of the Online Vigilance Scale

Leonard Reinecke  1 , Christoph Klimmt  2 , Adrian Meier  1 , Sabine Reich  2 , Dorothée Hefner  2 , Katharina Knop-Huelss  2 , Diana Rieger  3 , Peter Vorderer  4
Affiliations

Permanently online and permanently connected: Development and validation of the Online Vigilance Scale

Leonard Reinecke et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Smartphones and other mobile devices have fundamentally changed patterns of Internet use in everyday life by making online access constantly available. The present paper offers a theoretical explication and empirical assessment of the concept of online vigilance, referring to users' permanent cognitive orientation towards online content and communication as well as their disposition to exploit these options constantly. Based on four studies, a validated and reliable self-report measure of online vigilance was developed. In combination, the results suggest that the Online Vigilance Scale (OVS) shows a stable factor structure in various contexts and user populations and provides future work in communication, psychology, and other social sciences with a new measure of the individual cognitive orientation towards ubiquitous online communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Online Vigilance Scale.
Based on data from N = 1,024 participants (Study 2), χ2(51) = 195.69, p < .001, CMIN/df = 3.84, CFI = .983, RMSEA = .053, 90% CI = [.045, .061], and SRMR = .024. Scores in the figure represent standardized path coefficients significant at p < .001.
Fig 2
Fig 2. SEM assessing the construct validity of the Online Vigilance Scale.
Based on data from N = 532 participants (Study 3), χ2(391) = 804.486, p < .001, CMIN/df = 2.06, CFI = .957, RMSEA = .045, 90% CI = [.040, .049], and SRMR = .052. Scores in the figure represent standardized path coefficients significant at p < .01. Relatedness satisfaction was measured with regard to interpersonal online communication.
Fig 3
Fig 3. SEM estimating the test-retest reliability of the Online Vigilance Scale.
Based on data from N = 448 participants (Study 3) who completed both the T1 (Monday) and T2 (Friday) assessments of the scale, χ2(243) = 597.86, p < .001, CMIN/df = 2.46, CFI = .953, RMSEA = .057, 90% CI = [.051, .063], and SRMR = .055. Scores in the figure represent standardized path coefficients significant at p < .001.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Pew Research Center (2015) The smartphone difference.
    1. Burchell K (2014) Tasking the everyday: Where mobile and online communication take time. Mobile Media & Communication 3: 36–52.
    1. Ling R (2012) Taken for grantedness The embedding of mobile communication into society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    1. Cheever NA, Rosen LD, Carrier LM, Chavez A (2014) Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior 37: 290–297.
    1. Clayton RB, Leshner G, Almond A (2015) The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20: 119–135.

Publication types

Grants and funding

Study 2 and study 4 were funded by an internal research grant from the University of Mannheim to Peter Vorderer. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.