Statistical investigation
SPSS to own Screen (ver. 21.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was applied to have statistical research. Demographic attributes was reported due to the fact frequency and you can commission. Chi-square sample was utilized examine habits and you may normal teams on properties from gender, socio-economic condition, family unit members build, despair, stress, ADHD, puffing, and you will liquor use. Pearson correlation analysis was did to select the correlation anywhere between cellphone addiction scores or other variables of interest. Finally, multivariate binary logistic regression data is actually performed to assess this new determine out-of intercourse, anxiety, anxiety, ADHD, puffing, and alcoholic beverages fool around with toward smartphone habits. The research was done using backwards strategy, having addiction class and regular category because the based variables and you will people gender, despair classification, stress group, ADHD class, smoking group, and you can alcoholic drinks groups while the separate variables. A p worth of less than 0.05 is actually thought to mean statistical value.
Results
One of the 5051 pupils recruited with the investigation, 539 was basically omitted due to incomplete responses. Thus, all in all, 4512 college students (45.1% men, n = 2034; 54.9% girls, letter = 2478) was indeed included in this studies. New indicate period of the latest victims try (SD = 1.62). The sociodemographic services of your subjects is actually described in Desk step one. Having resource, 4060 college students (87.8%) was local hookup site mobile phone owners (84.2% off male, n = 1718 from 2041; ninety.6% away from female, letter = 2342 off 2584) among the 4625 children exactly who responded to practical question regarding mobile ownership (426 didn’t perform).
Table 2 shows clinical characteristics between smartphone addiction and normal groups. Of the 4512 participants, 338 (7.5%) were categorized to the addiction group, while 4174 belonged to the normal group. The mean age in the addiction group and normal group was ± 1.63 and ± 1.44, respectively, with no statistical difference between the groups (t = 0.744, p = 0.458). Furthermore, socio-economic status and family structure had no statistical difference between the groups (? 2 = 3.912, p = 0.141; ? 2 = 0.685, p = 0.710). Apart from age, socio-economic status, and family structure, all other variables showed statistically significant differences between the addiction group and the normal group. These include: female sex (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.38–2.21), depression (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.26–5.28), anxiety (OR 4.41, 95% CI 3.43–5.64), cigarette smoking (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44–2.96), and alcohol use (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.22–2.16). The largest difference among all variables was noted with ADHD symptomspared to 26.0% of addiction group also belonging to the ADHD group, only 3.4% in the normal group were in the ADHD group. The odds ratio for smartphone addiction in ADHD group compared to non-ADHD was (? 2 = , p < 0.001).
Table 3 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients of smartphone addiction with other variables. Total smartphone addiction score showed greatest correlation with total CASS score (r = 0.427, p < 0.001). The total SAS score was also associated with total BDI score, total BAI score, female sex, smoking group, and alcohol use group in a statistically significant manner.
To identify the variables associated with smartphone addiction, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. All variables showing statistically significant difference between addiction group and normal group were entered and analyzed using backward method. In the goodness-of-fit test of the regression analysis model, the ? 2 log likelihood was and statistically significant (p < 0.001). In the first model tested, alcohol use had no statistically significant effect on smartphone addiction (B = 0.161, OR = 1.174 p = 0.375, 95% CI 0.823–1.675) and was, thus, removed from the final model. Table 4 shows the final model of the analysis; the odds ratio for smartphone addiction of female sex to males was 2.01 (95% CI 1.54–2.61). Odds ratio of ADHD group compared to non-ADHD group for song all variables (95% CI 4.60–9.00).