Cited by 492Impact of Technology on AdolescentsAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderChild Development and Digital Technology

Attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms and Internet addiction

Open access
YOO, HEE JEONG, CHO, SOO CHURL, HA, JIHYUN, YUNE, SOOK KYUNG, KIM, SEOG JU, HWANG, JAEUK, CHUNG, AIN, SUNG, YOUNG HOON +1 more·2004·Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

Abstract

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between attention deficit‐hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms and Internet addiction. In total, 535 elementary school students (264 boys, 271 girls; mean age, 11.0 ± 1.0 years) were recruited. The presence or severity of Internet addiction was assessed by the Young's Internet Addiction test. Parents and teachers of the children completed the DuPaul's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) rating scale (ARS; Korean version, K‐ARS) and Child Behavior Checklists. Children with the highest and lowest quartiles in K‐ARS scores were defined to be in ADHD and non‐ADHD groups, respectively. Five children (0.9%) met criteria for a definite Internet addiction and 75 children (14.0%) met criteria for a probable Internet addiction. K‐ARS scores had significant positive correlations with Young's Internet Addiction test scores. The Internet addiction group had higher total scores of K‐ARS and ADHD‐related subcategories in the Child Behavior Checklists than the non‐addiction group. The ADHD group had higher Internet addiction scores compared with the non‐ADHD group. Therefore, significant associations have been found between the level of ADHD symptoms and the severity of Internet addiction in children. In addition, current findings suggest that the presence of ADHD symptoms, both in inattention and hyperactivity‐impulsivity domains, may be one of the important risk factors for Internet addiction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2004.01290.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Schoolchildren with internet addiction experienced significantly greater symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity than non-internet-addicted students.

    “You and colleagues16 reported that schoolchildren with internet addiction experienced significantly greater symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity than non–internet-addicted students.”

    From Brain health consequences of digital technology use (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Kwak K, Kang S. The case study of the preoccupation with video games in children (I). Korean. J. Human Dev. 1998; 4: 1-18 (in Korean).
  2. Lyoo IK, Ha J, Yang EJ, Kim YM, Chang CG, Woo JI. Psychopathology of internet addiction. J. Korean Soc. Psychopathology 2000; 9: 16-26 (in Korean).
  3. Song MJ. Internet Addictive Users' Communicative Sat- isfaction in Online and Offline Situation. Dissertation, Graduate School of Korea University, Seoul, Korea, 2000.
  4. Ha J, Cho DY, Lee HJ, Yang HJ, Woo JI, Lyoo IK. Pat- terns of internet addiction in Korea. J Korean soc. Psy- chopathology 2000; 9: 59-68 (in Korean).
  5. Sonuga-Barke EJ. Psychological heterogeneity in ADHD -A dual pathway model of behaviour and cog- nition. Behav. Brain Res. 2002; 130: 29-36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
YOO, H. J., CHO, S. C., HA, J., YUNE, S. K., KIM, S. J., HWANG, J., CHUNG, A., SUNG, Y. H., & LYOO, I. K.
Affiliations
  • Gyeongsang National University (KR)
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Yongin Mental Hospital (KR)
Corresponding author
LYOO, IN KYOON
Venue
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10
Volume
58
Issue
5
Pages
487-494
ISSN
  • 1323-1316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1819
OpenAlex
W2131239197
Cited by
492
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 40
FWCI
21.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Seoul National University
  • Seoul National University Hospital
  • Samsung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
Keywords
internet addiction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD symptoms, impulsivity, hyperactivity, inattention, elementary school students, risk factors, Young's Internet Addiction Test, Child Behavior Checklist, ADHD Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Korea, Male, Personality Assessment, Risk Factors, Statistics as Topic, Comorbidity, Behavior, Addictive, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review