One major challenge for researchers and health professionals is understanding extraordinary behaviors (EB), whether addictive or behavioral. These behaviors are typically excessive, repetitive, and driven by impulses that are hard to resist. They often serve as a form of escapism or relief from stress and anxiety, yet persist despite causing harm to an individual’s life and relationships (Demetrovics et al., 2022; Grant et al., 2013; Karim and Chaudhri, 2012). Understanding EB is crucial for developing effective interventions and clearly defining their boundaries and impact.

To guide research and clinical interventions, Brand et al. (2022) caution against over-pathologizing normal behaviors based solely on frequency and propose three criteria for identifying potentially addictive behaviors. First, the behavior must have clinical relevance, causing harm or dysfunction. Second, it should align theoretically with addiction. Third, there must be empirical evidence, gathered through tools like self-reports, interviews, and experiments, supporting its biological and psychological basis. Despite their caution, the authors stress the need for greater investment in treatment and public health initiatives.

A systematic review by Mudry et al. (2011) highlighted the lack of consensus around excessive behavior syndrome, which includes addictions like internet use, sex, compulsive eating, substance abuse, gaming, overworking, shopping, trichotillomania, and extreme exercise. The nosological classification of many of these behaviors remains unclear, as they are not explicitly recognized in the DSM-5 or ICD-11, though some fall under broader diagnostic categories (Demetrovics et al., 2022; Starcevic and Khazaal, 2017). Research also shows that certain individuals, particularly those with depression, anxiety, or ADHD, are more prone to these behaviors (Demetrovics et al., 2022).

Further, numerous studies have explored different types of excessive or addictive behaviors, such as gaming (Burleigh et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2022), shopping (Guerrero-Vaca et al., 2019), sex (Brand et al., 2016), pornography and internet use (Monteiro et al., 2020; Souza and Cappellozza, 2019), eating (Santos, 2023), and alcohol use (Hill and Mazurek, 2003; Romera et al., 2022). Despite this progress, a key challenge—especially in Brazil—remains the development of reliable tools to measure and assess these behaviors.

The SSBA is increasingly used in research to assess addiction risk across a range of behaviors and substances. Developed by Schluter et al. (2020), it was based on symptom reports from individuals with lived experience of addiction and initially covered ten behaviors, including substance use, gambling, eating, shopping, sex, gaming, and work. Hodgins et al. (2023) later expanded it to 13 behaviors by three more categories: opioid use, excessive exercise, and compulsive working. In a study with 656 college students, they confirmed the SSBA’s validity and reliability, highlighting its value as a tool for both research and clinical assessment.

Given the lack of screening tools for behavioral addictions in Brazil, this study adapts the SSBA to the Brazilian context, establishes content validity through expert evaluation, and examines its initial factor structure in a community sample. Moreover, to effectively adapt and validate a tool like the SSBA for use in Brazil, we essentially consider the cultural, social, and behavioral norms that shape how excessive behaviors are manifested and perceived. This is especially important because the Brazilian society presents unique contexts, such as widespread internet use alongside limited access to mental health services (Andrade et al., 2020), high levels of religiosity that influence moral attitudes toward behaviors like sex and substance use (Moreira-Almeida et al., 2014), and pronounced socioeconomic inequality that may increase vulnerability to stress-related coping behaviors (Patel et al., 2018). These factors can influence both the prevalence and reporting of excessive behaviors, introducing potential biases in measurement. Cross-cultural validity is therefore critical in adapting psychological instruments for Brazil, requiring more than linguistic translation to ensure conceptual and functional equivalence (Borsa et al., 2012). Without these adaptations, assessment tools may fail to capture the lived experience of behavioral addiction in diverse Brazilian populations, undermining their utility for research and public health policy.

Further, to address the complexity and cultural relevance of excessive behaviors in Brazil, this study extended the original SSBA by including eight additional behaviors that are commonly reported in clinical or social contexts as problematic or potentially addictive. These addictions (e.g., excessive dedication to a romantic partner, cosmetic procedures, and use of social media) were informed by qualitative insights from Brazilian clinicians and researchers, as well as national trends in behavior-related complaints and treatment-seeking patterns. The inclusion of these behaviors is consistent with the criteria proposed by Brand et al. (2022), as they have been linked in the literature to functional impairment (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2012), impulsivity and loss of control (e.g., Hormes et al., 2014), and neurobiological correlates similar to those found in substance-related addictions (e.g., Turel et al., 2014). Moreover, these behaviors align with a growing body of international literature advocating for a culturally sensitive and empirically grounded expansion of the behavioral addiction framework (Müller et al., 2019). Therefore, the adaptation process did not merely translate the scale but also aimed to reflect behaviors with plausible addictive characteristics that are particularly salient in the Brazilian context.

Thus, the goal of this study is to lay the groundwork for broader applications of the SSBA beyond Western, industrialized populations. By addressing gaps in assessment tools, it aims to enhance clinical practices, support preventive measures, and encourage adoption and cultural adaptation of the SSBA in other Lusophone countries (e.g., Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Portugal, Timor-Leste). Especially, this research is timeless due to the globally growing mental health concerns associated with addiction.

The Brief Screener for Behavioral Addiction (SSBA), developed by Schluter et al. (2018), assesses the risk of substance and behavioral dependence in adults over reflection on the past 12 months. It focuses on behaviors that lead to significant problems, using four core statements for each behavior or substance: (a) “I did it too much,” (b) “Once I started, I couldn’t stop,” (c) “I felt I needed to do this to function,” and (d) “I continued despite the problems it caused.” Responses are rated on a 6-point Likert scale (0 = Never to 5 = I didn’t do any of these), with options to skip or decline to answer. To strengthen selection validity, Schluter et al. (2020) and Hodgins et al. (2023) recommend adding questions on psychological treatment, medication use, and hospitalization.

The original version included ten variables: alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, psychostimulants, gambling, overeating, shopping, sex, video games (Schluter et al., 2018). A second version by Hodgins et al. (2023) expanded to more behaviors: opioids, physical exercise, and study. Additionally, a new version of the Screener for Substance and Behavioral Addictions (SSBA-G) was developed by Thege et al. (2023). For the version adapted for Brazil, Schluter et al.’s (2018) original version was used. However, after a critical analysis of behaviors by the research team, eight additional factors were subsequently incorporated. These include excessive work, self-harm, excessive devotion to a romantic partner, outbursts of anger, hair-pulling or body hair removal, skin picking, theft, excessive internet use, and the use of tranquilizers. In this study, these extraordinary behaviors will be referred to as behavioral addictions (BAs). The specific characteristics of the 21 substances and behaviors are outlined in Table 1.

Among the challenges of developing more effective interventions for behavioral addictions and substance use in Brazil, the adaptation of the SSBA and the initial studies on its validity represent significant contributions. These efforts enhance the field and provide professionals with better tools for assessment and intervention. The SSBA studies indicate that the diagnostic categories allow for the identification of reliable measures with strong psychometric indicators. In addition to external evidence supporting the scale’s internal consistency, studies on content validity during the adaptation process and its convergence with psychopathology measures further reinforce the instrument’s reliability.

The SSBA structure remained consistent, though psychostimulant, opium, and cannabinoid use measures exhibited high collinearity. Future studies with clinical samples may reveal structural refinements, aligning with the findings of Hodgins et al. (2023). Regarding internal consistency, the SSBA demonstrated excellent reliability indicators, with alpha values exceeding 0.90, corroborating the findings of Thege et al. (2023).

Behavioral addictions generally demonstrate strong psychometric indices and align with psychopathological aspects, making the instrument a promising, brief, and effective screening tool. It can assess the functional impact of addictions, including both emotional and behavioral aspects, as highlighted by Thege et al. (2023), supporting future diagnoses and health interventions.

Despite these contributions, some limitations must be acknowledged. The use of convenience sampling may have introduced selection bias, reducing the generalizability of results beyond the studied population. Additionally, the absence of clinical samples limits conclusions about the SSBA’s sensitivity and specificity in detecting clinically significant cases. Furthermore, gender imbalance in the sample, specifically the underrepresentation of men, warrants attention, as it may obscure potential gender-specific patterns. Future research should consider stratified or male-focused sampling to enhance representativeness. In addition, we acknowledge the role of self-selection bias, as individuals with greater interest or concern about the topic may have been more likely to participate. These limitations suggest caution in interpreting the findings and underscore the importance of future validation studies with diverse and clinical populations to improve the instrument’s diagnostic precision and applicability.

Nevertheless, the SSBA’s potential for clinical and policy use is notable. As a brief, psychometrically sound screening tool, it can support early detection strategies in primary care, mental health, and educational settings. Its ability to capture both behavioral and emotional dimensions of addiction aligns well with integrative care models and public health frameworks. For policymakers, the availability of a validated measure tailored to the Brazilian context fills an important gap, enabling more accurate population-level monitoring and informing the development of targeted prevention and intervention programs.

The measurement of addictive behaviors in Brazil is limited, with no valid screening studies to date. The SSBA, supported by validity evidence, can be a valuable tool in clinical and health settings. Future research in Portuguese-speaking countries should apply the scale in diverse contexts, such as police forces, schools, and universities, to support public policy and management strategies. A key limitation of this study is its use of a convenience sample, which does not reflect clinical populations. Future research should address this by including samples that represent specific addictive behaviors, like substance use. To establish norms, future studies should broaden sampling in Brazil to include clinical and non-clinical groups and invest in creating normative tables and ROC curve analyses, as recommended by Schluter et al. (2020).