Cited by 61Impact of Technology on AdolescentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesGender and Technology in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q): Factorial structure and cut-off points for the Spanish version

Open access
León-Mejía, Ana, Calvete, Esther, Patino-Alonso, Carmen, Machimbarrena, Juan M., González-Cabrera, Joaquín·2020·Adicciones

Abstract

Nomophobia is a situational phobia leading to a deep, irrational, and disproportionate fear of not being able to use the smartphone. An instrumental study on the Spanish version of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q) was carried out. The objectives were: 1) To analyse its factor structure and reliability; 2) to test for the invariance of sex and age groups, and 3) to obtain specific cut-off points by sex and age non-existent to date. Sampling was incidental and non-probabilistic with 5012 participants (57.9%, females) aged 12-24 years (M = 18.04, SD = 3.3). The confirmatory factor analysis revealed a hierarchical model with four correlated factors explained by a general second-order factor. The internal validity and reliability values of the NMP-Q dimensions are satisfactory, ranging between .78, .85, .86, and .92 (Omega w). A multigroup analysis confirmed the invariance across sex and age groups. Building on the NMP-Q scores, we calculated 3 cut-off points using percentiles 15th, 80th and 95th (unnomophobic, at risk of nomophobia, and nomophobic). Females aged 12-15 years had the highest nomophobic scores. We can conclude that the proposed sex and age cut-off points will allow us to better identify nomophobic problems from a clinical point of view.

Overview

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 · 10.20882/adicciones.1316

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
León-Mejía, A., Calvete, E., Patino-Alonso, C., Machimbarrena, J. M., & González-Cabrera, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Deusto (ES)
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
Venue
Adicciones
Published
2020-03-04
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
137-148
ISSN
0214-4840 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3010317355
Cited by
61
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
9.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Adicciones (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Re-Unir (International University of La Rioja) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
nomophobia, Nomophobia Questionnaire, smartphone addiction, factor structure, psychometric validation, Spanish adaptation, sex differences, age differences, cut-off values, adolescents, young adults
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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