Propiedades psicométricas de una escala de conductas prosociales en línea hacia pares en adolescentes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24265/Palavras-chave:
adolescentes, conducta prosocial en línea, medición, validezResumo
Antecedentes: la prosocialidad en línea entre adolescentes ha cobrado relevancia en los estudios del desarrollo socioemocional. No obstante, son escasos los instrumentos psicométricamente robustos para su medición, especialmente en población mexicana. Objetivos: examinar las propiedades psicométricas de una escala para medir conductas prosociales en línea hacia los pares en adolescentes mexicanos, así como evaluar su invariancia de medida por sexo y etapa de la adolescencia (intermedia vs. tardía). Método: participaron 411 estudiantes de preparatorias públicas urbanas de una ciudad del noroeste de México (M edad = 16.2 años, DE = 0.83), de los cuales 197 fueron hombres y 214 mujeres, respondiendo varios cuestionarios de autorreporte. Resultados: el análisis factorial confirmatorio mostró un buen ajuste del modelo unidimensional a los datos. Asimismo, se obtuvo evidencia de validez convergente y concurrente, así como adecuados índices de fiabilidad. Finalmente, se confirmó la invariancia de medida del instrumento por sexo y etapa de la adolescencia. Conclusiones: la escala presenta propiedades psicométricas adecuadas, constituyendo una herramienta válida y fiable para la medición de las conductas prosociales en línea en adolescentes mexicanos.
Downloads
Referências
Affuso, G., Picone, N., De Angelis, G., Dragone, M., Esposito, C., Pannone, M., Zannone, A., & Bacchini, D. (2024). The reciprocal effects of prosociality, peer support and psychological well-being in adolescence: A four-wave longitudinal study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(12), 1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21121630
Anderson-Butcher, D., Amosose, A. J., Iachini, A., & Ball, A. (2013). Community and youth collaborative institute school experience surveys. College of Social Work, The Ohio State University.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Angarita, L., Zabala, L., & Tezón, M. (2024). Relaciones entre tipos de emociones positivas en adolescentes postpandemia: Revisión documental especializada. Liberabit, 30(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2024.v30n1.772
Angelini, F., Gini, G., Marino, C., & Van Den Eijnden, R. (2024). Social media features, perceived group norms, and adolescents’ active social media use matter for perceived friendship quality. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, e1222907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1222907
Auné, S., Abal, F., & Attorresi, H. (2019). La estructura de la conducta prosocial. Su aproximación mediante el modelo bifactorial de la teoría de la respuesta al ítem multidimensional. Liberabit, 25(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2019.v25n1.04
Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.
Barber, B. K., & Schluterman, J. M. (2008). Connectedness in the lives of children and adolescents: A call for greater conceptual clarity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(3), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.012
Baumert, A., Maltese, S., Reis, D., MacLeod, C., Tan-Mansukhani, R., Galang, A. J. R., Salanga, M. G. C., & Schmitt, M. (2020). A cross-cultural study of justice sensitivity and its consequences for cooperation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619896895
Bondü, R., & Elsner, B. (2015). Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 24(2), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12098
Bondü, R., Schwemmer, F., & Pfetsch, J. (2021). Justice sensitivity is positively and negatively related to prejudice and discrimination. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.11576/ijcv-4463
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440
Chávez, D. V., Salmivalli, C., Garandeau, C. F., Berger, C., & Luengo Kanacri, B. P. (2022). Bidirectional associations of prosocial behavior with peer acceptance and rejection in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(12), 2355–2367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01675-5
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/5767
Courtney, M., Karakus, M., Ersozlu, Z., & Nurumov, K. (2022). The influence of ICT use and related attitudes on students’ math and science performance: Multilevel analyses of the last decade’s PISA surveys. Large-scale Assessment in Education, 10(1), e8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-022-00128-6
Dienlin, T., & Johannes, N. (2020). El impacto del uso de la tecnología digital en el bienestar de los adolescentes. Diálogos de Neurociencia Clínica, 22(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/tdienlin
Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2018). Development of a measure of adolescents’ online prosocial behavior. Journal of Children and Media, 12(4), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1431558
Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2019). Feel good, do good online? Spillover and crossover effects of happiness on adolescents’ online prosocial behavior. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 1241–1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0003-2
Eurostat. (2025). 97% of young people in the EU use internet daily. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/edn-20250715-1
Feng, T., Wang, X., Qiuxu, C., Liu, X., Yang, L., Liu, S., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Sympathy and active defending behaviors among Chinese adolescent bystanders: A moderated mediation model of attitude toward bullying and school connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 59(9), 1922–1936. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22736
Furr, R. M. (2018). Psychometrics: An introduction (3rd ed.). Sage.
García-Vázquez, F. I., Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., León-Parada, M. D., & Parra-Pérez, L. G. (2024). Restorative parental discipline and types of defending bystander intervention in cyberbullying: The mediate role of justice sensitivity. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 27(6), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0445
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2025). Encuesta nacional sobre disponibilidad y uso de tecnologías de la información en los hogares (ENDUTIH) 2024. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/endutih/2024/
James, C., Weinstein, E., & Mendoza, K. (2021). Teaching digital citizens in today's world: Research and insights behind the Common-Sense K–12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum (Version 2). Common Sense Media.
Jenkins, L. N., & Nickerson, A. B. (2017). Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21688
Jones, L. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2016). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2063–2079. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797
Kim, S., & Han, Y. (2020). Different trajectories of citizenship across latent classes of adolescent online risk behavior. Children and Youth Services Review, 109, Article 104731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104731
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press.
Kodapanakkal, R. I., Kogler, C., Brandt, M. J., & van Beest, I. (2024). Differences in information acquisition and justice sensitivity predict adoption of apps affecting own and others’ privacy. Acta Psychologica, 251, Article 104589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104589
Leng, J., Guo, Q., Ma, B., Zhang, S., & Sun, P. (2020). Bridging personality and online prosocial behavior: The roles of empathy, moral identity, and social self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 575053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575053
López-Gastelum, J. A., Chaidez-Villalobos, I. D., Morales-Álvarez, A., & Valdés-Cuervo, A. A. (2024). Propiedades psicométricas de una escala para medir la conducta prosocial de adolescentes hacia pares. En M. C. Dávila, M. L. Serna, M. Rivera, & L. A. Galván (Eds.), Derechos humanos y conductas prosociales para la inclusión social, educativa y tecnológica (pp. 16–34). Fontamara.
Lozano-Blasco, R., Latorre-Martínez, M. P., & Cortés-Pascual, A. (2022). Screen addicts: A meta-analysis of internet addiction in adolescence. Children and Youth Services Review, 135, 106373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106373
Macháckova, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., & Cerna, A. (2013). Bystanders’ support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2135
Maiya, S., Carlo, G., Gülseven, Z., & Crockett, L. (2020). Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement, deviant peer affiliation, and school connectedness on prosocial behaviors in U.S. Latino/a youth. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(10–11), 2898–2917. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520941611
Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575461
Nielson, M. G., Padilla-Walker, L., & Holmes, E. K. (2017). How do men and women help? Validation of a multidimensional measure of prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 56(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.006
Nuttall, M., Machin, T., Peel, R., Abel, S., & Brown, S. (2025). Online prosocial behaviors: A scoping review of definitions, actions, and motivators. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 28(6), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2024.0481
Ojeda, M., del Rey, R., Walrave, M., & Vandebosch, H. (2020). Sexting in adolescentes: Prevalencia y comportamientos. Comunicar, 28(64), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-01
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). How’s life for children in the digital age? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2014). The study of prosocial behavior: Past, present, and future. En L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 3–16). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0001
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Coyne, S. M. (2018). Associations between prosocial and problem behavior from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0736-y
Pastor, Y., Hihara, S., Martínez-Íñigo, D., Pérez-Torres, V., Guazzelli-Williamson, V., Erreygers, S., Magis-Weinberg, L., & Iwasa, Y. (2025). Online prosocial behavior during adolescence in Belgium, Japan, Peru, and Spain: Cross-national and gender invariance and differences in four countries. Journal of Children and Media, 19(2), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2404525
Pastor, Y., Pérez-Torres, V., Thomas-Currás, H., Lobato-Rincón, L. L., López-Sáez, M. Á., & García, A. (2024). A study of the influence of altruism, social responsibility, reciprocity, and the subjective norm on online prosocial behavior in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 154, 108156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108156
Peprah, P., Oduro, M. S., Okwei, R., Adu, C., Asiamah-Asare, B. Y., & Agyemang-Duah, W. (2023). Cyberbullying victimization and suicidal ideation among in-school adolescents in three countries: Implications for prevention and intervention. BMC Psychiatry, 23, 944. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05268-9
Pew Research Center. (2024). Teens, social media and technology 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024/
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Ribble, M. S. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know (3rd ed.). International Society of Technology in Education.
Rothschild, Z. K., & Keefer, L. A. (2018). Righteous or self-righteous anger? Justice sensitivity moderates defensive outrage at a third-party harm-doer. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2349
Ruvalcaba-Romero, N., Orozco-Solis, M., Gallegos-Guajardo, J., & Nava-Fuerte, J. (2018). Relaciones escolares, comunicación con padres y prosocialidad como predictores de emociones positivas. Liberabit, 24(2), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n2.02
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433
Savalei, V., & Bentler, P. M. (2019). Structural equation modeling. En P. Irwing, T. Booth, & D. J. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing (pp. 613–657). Wiley.
Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23(2–3), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2
Smetana, J. G., & Yoo, H. N. (2022). Development and variations in moral and social-conventional judgments. En M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (3rd ed., pp. 19–36). Routledge.
Song, Y., Broekhuizen, M. L., & Dubas, J. S. (2020). Happy little benefactor: Prosocial behaviors promote happiness in young children from two cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01398
Stotsky, M. T., Bower, J. C., & Etkin, R. G. (2020). Receiving prosocial behavior: Examining the reciprocal associations between positive peer treatment and psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(2), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12537
Strauß, S., & Bondü, R. (2022). Links between justice sensitivity and moral reasoning, moral emotions, and moral identity in middle childhood. Child Development, 93(2), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13684
Su, N., & Wang, H.-P. (2022). The influence of students’ sense of social connectedness on prosocial behavior in higher education institutions in Guangxi, China: A perspective of perceived teachers’ character teaching behavior and social support. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1029315. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1029315
Te Brinke, L. W., van de Groep, S., van der Cruijsen, R., & Crone, E. A. (2023). Variability and change in adolescents' prosocial behavior across multiple time scales. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33(2), 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12827
Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., Morales-Álvarez, A., Parra-Pérez, L. G., & García-Vázquez, F. I. (2024). Assessment of an Adolescent Digital Citizenship Scale: Examining dimensionality, measurement invariance and external validity. RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 30(1), e3.
Van de Groep, S., van de Groep, I. H., & Crone, E. A. (2026). Online prosocial behaviors in adolescence and young adulthood: Differential age and gender patterns for online emotional support and online activism. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 21, e100877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100877
Widaman, K. F., & Olivera-Aguilar, M. (2023). Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. En R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 367–384). Guilford Press.
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Yang, Y., Li, P., Fu, X., & Kou, Y. (2017). Orientations to happiness and subjective well-being in Chinese adolescents: The roles of prosocial behavior and internet addictive behavior. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(6), 1747–1762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9794-1
Zhang, W., Yu, G., & Fu, W. (2022). The cross-spillover effects of online prosocial behavior on subjective well-being: Daily diary evidence from Chinese adolescents. Sustainability, 14(15), 9734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159734
Zhu, J., & Liu, C. (2024). Why does advantageous inequity promote prosocial behavior? The roles of justice sensitivity and guilt. Acta Psychologica, 251, 104620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104620
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Humberto García-Penedo, Fernanda Inéz García-Vázquez, Angel Alberto Valdés-Cuervo, Agustín Morales-Álvarez, Luis Alberto Díaz-Vargas
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Direitos autorais: Caso o manuscrito seja aprovado para publicação futura, os autores retêm os direitos autorais e atribuem à revista os direitos de publicar, editar, reproduzir, distribuir, exibir e comunicar nacional e internacionalmente nos diversos bancos de dados, repositórios e portais.
Política de auto-arquivamento: O autor pode compartilhar, disseminar e divulgar suas pesquisas publicadas pela mídia (por exemplo, redes sociais acadêmicas, repositórios e portais) disponíveis na web. Durante o processo de revisão editorial, a revista fornecerá ao autor as versões anteriores (pós-impressão) que NÃO devem ser divulgadas por nenhum meio de comunicação, apenas para uso pessoal e para aprovação final. Liberabit, enviará ao autor a versão final do artigo (versão publicada) em PDF e HTML para ser compartilhada, divulgada e divulgada pela mídia disponível na web. Após a publicação dos artigos, os autores podem fazer outros acordos independentes ou adicionais para a divulgação não exclusiva da versão do artigo publicado nesta revista (publicação em livros ou repositórios institucionais), desde que seja indicado com a respectiva referência que a obra foi publicada pela primeira vez nesta revista.
Como Citar
