Analytical investigation
SPSS getting Windows (observar. 21.0; SPSS Inc., il, IL, USA) was used having statistical data. Market features was said just like the volume and you can percentage. Chi-rectangular sample was applied evaluate dependency https://hookupfornight.com/ and you may regular organizations towards the properties out-of sex, socio-economic standing, friends design, anxiety, stress, ADHD, smoking, and you may alcohol fool around with. Pearson correlation studies was performed to determine the correlation anywhere between portable dependency results and other variables of interest. Fundamentally, multivariate digital logistic regression data are did to assess the newest influence away from intercourse, anxiety, nervousness, ADHD, puffing, and you may liquor fool around with on the smartphone dependency. The research try completed playing with backward strategy, that have dependency class and you may regular category because created details and you may women intercourse, depression group, nervousness group, ADHD classification, puffing category, and liquor communities due to the fact independent details. An excellent p value of lower than 0.05 is thought to imply mathematical benefit.
Show
Among the 5051 children recruited on the data, 539 was in fact excluded on account of partial solutions. Thus, a maximum of 4512 students (forty-five.1% male, letter = 2034; 54.9% women, letter = 2478) were among them research. The brand new indicate ages of brand new victims are (SD = step 1.62). Brand new sociodemographic functions of subjects was summarized in Desk 1. To possess site, 4060 college students (87.8%) have been portable customers (84.2% off men, n = 1718 out of 2041; ninety.6% out of ladies, n = 2342 out-of 2584) among the 4625 youngsters which responded to issue from portable control (426 don’t work).
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).