Psychological Factors Applicable to App Development for Overcoming Problematic Smartphone Use: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Article information

Psychiatry Investig. 2026;23(6):809-817

Publication date (electronic) : 2026 June 8

doi : https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0317

Jihwan Park ¹

, Mi Jung Rho^,²

¹College of Liberal Arts, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea

²College of Health Science, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea

Correspondence: Mi Jung Rho, PhD College of Health Science, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Dongnamgu, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea Tel: +82-41-550-1474, E-mail: romy1018@naver.com

Received 2024 October 19; Revised 2025 July 6; Accepted 2026 April 9.

Abstract

Objective

As the importance of smartphones grows, so too do the negative side effects, such as mental health issues caused by problematic smartphone use. Therefore, to lay the foundation for developing apps that can address problematic smartphone use, we must clearly identify the psychological factors that influence it. To this end, we attempted to identify the psychological factors that influence problematic smartphone use using structural equation modeling.

Methods

We used data from 691 smartphone users (aged 20s to 50s) collected via an online survey from December 8, 2019, through January 17, 2020. We developed two research models based on anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, self-control, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We conducted structural equation modeling using R to identify psychological factors that influence problematic smartphone use.

Results

Although anxiety and depressive symptoms showed a strong correlation, anxiety symptoms did not directly influence problematic smartphone use, but rather indirectly (mediated effect) through depressive symptoms. Additionally, the lower an individual’s self-control, the more likely he or she is to be smartphone dependent. The higher the ADHD, the more problematic the smartphone use. In addition, we used single indicators of scales such as Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in structural equation model and confirmed good model fit.

Conclusion

We presented major psychological factors to be considered in developing health applications to manage and control problematic smartphone use: anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, self-control, ADHD.

Keywords: Anxiety symptoms; Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; Depression symptoms; Problematic smartphone use; Self-control; Structural equation model

INTRODUCTION

As of 2023, the Koreans’ smartphone ownership rate was 96.5%, the average daily smartphone usage time among Koreans are 2 hours and 23 minutes [1]. Although these devices have many convenient uses in daily life and smartphone play an important role in modern life, problematic smartphone use (PSU) has many side effects [2-4]. When reliance on smartphones is high, serious interpersonal conflicts [5,6], daily role problems [7], and mental health problems [8,9] can be caused by a loss of control and problematic smartphone use. The proportion of the Korean population considered “at risk” for PSU is 20%; one out of five smartphone users have reported an overdependence. Smartphone overuse is reportedly increasing every year, and Korean perception of the severity of PSU has continued to rise over the past 3 years, with 78.8% of the respondents of one study indicating dependence on smartphones was serious [10].

Several previous studies examining the association between PSU and psychological factors—such as anxiety, depression, selfcontrol, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)— have been conducted [11-14]. It reported that PSU is observed loss of control, preoccupation, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms observed in behavioral addictions, with ADHD, depression, anxiety, reduced self-control, and impulsivity [11,15-17]. Poor self-control also leads to PSU [16,18,19], and self-control is reported to be a major risk factor in psychiatric symptoms.

Thus, it is essential to identify the psychological factors that can be utilized to develop technology, such as apps, to overcome PSU. Accordingly, we sought to clearly identify and understand the psychological risk factors associated with PSU, and their relationships, to help people overcome it.

Moreover, most PSU research targets adolescents and college students or young adults (20s to 30s) [20-22]. However, PSU is not limited to these individuals, and research across a wider range of age groups is needed [23-25]. Therefore, we targeted adults in their 20s to 50s, who are the most common smartphone users in Korea.

Hypotheses and research model

We developed a research model to identify psychological factors that influence PSU. The research model includes four factors: anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, self-control, and ADHD. PSU was the dependent variable. Based on the variables, we hypothesized the following associations regarding psychological factors and PSU. The relationships between the variables that we expected to find are illustrated in Figure 1. There are two research models in this study.

Figure 1.

Research models. A: Research model_1. B: Research model_2. ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Firstly, we aimed to elucidate how depression symptoms and anxiety symptoms affect PSU using a structural equation model (SEM). Anxiety and depression can be viewed as related concepts, they are also conceptualized in two ways [26]. Anxiety and depression symptoms can be viewed as related concepts and are conceptualized in two ways in the literature. One perspective examines individuals experiencing both anxiety and depression symptoms simultaneously. The second perspective focuses on individuals with depression symptoms accompanied by varying levels of anxiety symptoms [26]. Previous studies defined high baseline anxiety, or “anxious depression,” as a baseline Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) score of 10 or greater. Non anxious depression was defined as a GAD-7 score of less than 10.27 If anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms are intertwined, it was necessary to find out what pathway’s anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms lead to PSU. Based on this literature, we attempted to investigate the pathways through which depression symptoms and anxiety symptoms progress in relation to PSU. Based on this theoretical background, we developed Hypothesis 1 and 2.

H1: Depression symptoms are positively associated with anxiety symptoms.

H2: Anxiety symptoms are positively associated with depression symptoms.

Secondly, previous research has found that both depression and anxiety were significant PSU predictors [8,14,28-32]. Studies across a wide age range (from 17 to 67 years old) also report that compulsive smartphone use is associated with social interaction anxiety [24]. In this study context, anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms are positively associated with PSU. Based on this research, this study developed Hypotheses 3 and 4.

H3: Depression symptoms are positively associated with PSU.

H4: Anxiety symptoms are positively associated with PSU.

Several studies targeting different age groups have reported that people with lower self-control are more likely to be PSU [33-36]. Thus, in this research context, it assumed that the lower the selfcontrol, the higher the PSU. Based on this research, this study developed Hypotheses 5.

H5: Self-control is positively associated with PSU.

ADHD reported to be significantly associated with PSU [20-22,37]. The subjects of the study are diverse, including preschoolers, adolescents, children, college students, and young adults (20s and 30s). Based on this literature review, Hypothesis 6 was developed.

H6: ADHD is positively associated with PSU.

METHODS

Participants

We attempted to identify psychological factors that influence PSU with data from an online survey. Thus, this study collected smartphone users’ data from an anonymous web-based survey. The online survey was executed by an established polling company (dataSpring, Inc., https://www.d8aspring.com/). The survey was conducted from December 8, 2019, through January 17, 2020.

The company sent emails to an online panel; the emails included a survey link and an informed consent link. If panelists formally agreed to participate in the survey, they could complete an anonymous questionnaire. The inclusive criteria were that participants had to be adults between the ages of 20 and 59 years and be smartphone users. Responses from participants who repeated the same answer for all the survey items were deleted. In addition, we calculated the response time for the entire survey. The minimum time required was estimated to be approximately 3 minutes. We also excluded the responses of those who responded faster than the minimum time, as they were deemed “meaningless responses.” Finally, we used 691 smartphone users’ response in the analysis.

Measures

A total of five variables were used to develop the research model: PSU, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, selfcontrol, and ADHD (Table 1). We used PSU as the dependent variable. The four independent variables included 1) anxiety symptoms, 2) depression symptoms, 3) self-control, and 4) ADHD. After reviewing the literature on psychological factors, four variables were finally selected.

Table 1.

Characteristics of psychological factors

First, we used the Korean Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale for Adults (S-Scale) to evaluate PSU [38,39]. The S-Scale has 15 questions rated on a 4-point Likert scale (Supplementary Table 1). The higher the total score, the higher the PSU. The S-Scale has three risk group based on cutoff criteria: no-risk (total score 15–39 points), potential-risk (40–43), and high risk (over 44). Second, this study employed the GAD-7 scale to evaluate anxiety symptoms [40]. The GAD-7 has seven questions rated on a 0- to 3-point Likert scale. The higher the total score, the higher the level of anxiety (Supplementary Table 2). The GAD-7 has four groups based on cutoff criteria: no anxiety (total score 0–4), mild anxiety (5–9), moderate anxiety (10–14), and severe anxiety (15–21). Third, for depression symptoms, we used the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [41]. The PHQ-9 has nine questions rated on a 0- to 3-point Likert scale (Supplementary Table 3). The higher the total score, the higher the degree of depression. The PHQ-9 has five group based on cutoff criteria: none (total score 0–4), mild (5– 9), moderate (10–14), moderately severe (15–19), and severe (20–27). Fourth, this study measured the Self-control using the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) [42]. The BSCS includes 13 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Supplementary Table 4). The higher the total score, the less self-control. There is no cutoff criterion for BSCS. Lastly, we used the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist (ASRS-v.1.1) part A to measure ADHD (Supplementary Table 5). The ASRS-v.1.1 consists of 18 criteria described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV-TR. Part A of the ASRS-v.1.1 consists of 6 items on a 5-point Likert scale. According to the scoring instructions, four or more marks in the darkly shaded boxes indicate that the respondent has symptoms “highly consistent with ADHD in adults” (Supplementary Table 5) [43]. Thus, we used those 6 items to assess ADHD in this study.

Statistical analysis

First, this study performed the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the discernible construct structures. We performed a principal component analysis with varimax rotation to test construct validity. Second, this study calculated Cronbach’s alpha to assess the reliability of all constructs. Third, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to check construct validity: construct reliability (CR) score, average variance extracted (AVE), and discriminant validity. Next, we tested the hypotheses to assess the research model.

In detail, the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and S-Scale have cutoff criteria, while the BSCS and ADHD do not. For those with cutoffs, the total score of each variable was used for analysis. There-fore, the values measured by multiple indicators were used in the SEM using a single indicator (total score). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to measure the reliability of three variables: GAD-7, PHQ-9, and S-Scale (Supplementary Table 6). Meanwhile, the BSCS and ADHD scales, which do not have cutoffs, were subjected to EFA and CFA based on multiple indicators. Descriptive statistics and the internal consistency of the data were assessed using R. SEM was applied to identify causal relationships between the model parameters using R. We used the R package lavaan for SEMs (version 0.6-5) (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/) [44]. We conducted a one-way analysis of variance using PSU as the independent variable in order to investigate potential bias and respondent characteristics.

Ethics

The study procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Catholic University (MC20QISI0005). Participants’ data were de-identified.

RESULTS

Participants’ characteristics

Of the 691 respondents whose data were used for analysis, sex was nearly evenly split (female 51.5%, male 48.5%) (Table 2). The age distribution ranged from 20 to 59. Nearly half of the respondents were married (49.5%), and most (82.1%) had education levels University graduation or above (including college students). The largest group by salary (35.6%) was those in the income range of 1,825.82 to 3,651.63 USD per month. Regarding the respondents’ residence areas, the largest group were those living in Seoul (32.6%). For the majority of participants (69.5%), the overall survey scores indicated normal smartphone use; 54.6% of respondents were in the “normal” group for anxiety symptoms; 41.4% indicated having no symptoms of depression.

Table 2.

Demographic characteristics and results of one-way ANOVA (N=691)

Reliability and validity

First, these are the results of the EFA and a principal component analysis of self-control and ADHD. Two factors emerged with non-cross construct loadings greater than 0.07. Two factors explain 65.098% of the total variance. Communality ranged from 0.593 to 0.718, with all items achieving the 0.50 threshold. Thus, two constructs are distinct uni-dimensional scales (Table 3).

Table 3.

Loadings, cross-loadings, reliability, and CFA results of self-control and ADHD

Second, this was the result of reliability of all constructs using Cronbach’s alpha value. The internal consistency values for all constructs were significant: 0.801 for self-control, 0.758 for ADHD, 0.909 for PSU, 0.908 for depression symptoms, 0.922 for anxiety symptoms. The internal consistency values for the two constructs were greater than 0.70.45 Thus, all variables were proven reliable.

Third, this was results of convergent validity and reliability: AVE, CR scores, and discriminant validity. The CFA were as below: chi-square/degree of freedom (χ²/df=1.582), comparative fit index (CFI=0.995), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI=0.992), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA=0.029). All values met the recommended threshold [46]. The convergent validity of each construct was evaluated based on AVE and CR. All variables had an AVE loading greater than 0.50 (0.503 of self-control and 0.527 of ADHD) [47]. Two variables had CR scores greater than 0.70 (0.793 of self-control and 0.758 of ADHD) [48]. Thus, we used four of the 13 items for self-control and three of 6 items for ADHD.

Finally, this was results of the discriminant validity of selfcontrol and ADHD. We can achieve discriminant validity when the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than the correlations between each construct and the other constructs [46]. The square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than the corresponding inter-construct correlations (Supplementary Table 7).

Hypothesis testing

Firstly, this is hypothesis testing results of the proposed model-1. We assessed structural model fit using general goodnessof-fit measures: χ²/df (chi-square/degree of freedom)=2.449, CFI=0.986, TLI=0.979, and RMSEA=0.046. The value of χ²/df is acceptable when it is 3 or less. CFI and TLI are acceptable when it is 0.9 or more. RMSEA is acceptable when it is 0.08 or less. The overall values of model_1 were within acceptable range.

The structural path diagram supported the positive relationships described in four of the hypotheses (Figure 2). The structural path diagram supported the relationships postulated for H1, H3, H5, and H6 (Supplementary Table 8). As predicted, H1 was supported: depression symptoms are positively associated with anxiety (β=0.939, p<0.001). H3, depression symptoms are positively associated with PSU, was supported by a positive path coefficient (β=0.451, p<0.01). H5, the hypothesis that self-control is positively associated with PSU, was supported by a positive path coefficient (β=0.261, p<0.001). H6, the hypothesis that ADHD is positively associated with PSU, was supported by a positive path coefficient (β=0.242, p<0.001). However, H4 was rejected.

Figure 2.

Results of hypotheses testing. A: Research model_1. B: Research model_2. **t0.01=2.576, ***t0.001=3.291. ADHD, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder.

Secondly, this is hypothesis testing results of the research model_2. We assessed structural model fit using general goodness-of-fit measures: χ²/df=2.995, CFI=0.981, TLI=0.971, and RMSEA=0.054. Thus, the overall values also were within acceptable ranges. The structural path diagram supported the positive relationships described in four of the hypotheses (Figure 2). The structural path diagram supported the relationships postulated for H2, H3, H5, and H6 (Supplementary Table 8). H2 was supported: anxiety symptoms have a positive effect on depression (β=0.944, p<0.001). H3 also was supported by a positive path coefficient (β=0.520, p<0.001). H5 also was supported by a positive path coefficient (β=0.286, p<0.001). H6 also was supported by a positive path coefficient (β=0.253, p<0.001). However, H4 was also rejected in research model_2.

DISCUSSION

We attempted to find psychological risk factors of PSU among smartphone users in their 20s to 50s. We sought to identify psychological factors that could be leveraged to develop technologies to overcome PSU. Some interesting results influence PSU are as follows.

First, our results strongly suggest that PSU has the characteristics of behavioral addiction. All factors have been reported to be related to behavioral addiction as well as traditional addiction issues, such as substance use and gambling disorders [49-52]. However, there is still controversy about determining PSU as an addiction. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of addiction in terms of PSU, it would at least be practical to use IT technology to help people who use their smartphones excessively.

Second, we found that anxiety symptoms lead to PSU through depression symptoms. In other words, anxiety symptoms do not directly affect PSU but affect it through depression symptoms. According to previous research, PSU are observed loss of control, preoccupation, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms observed in behavioral addictions, with depression, anxiety, reduced self-control, and impulsivity [17,53,54]. Our finding differs from previous studies that have reported anxiety is a risk factor for PSU [55]. Additionally, our results showed the depression symptoms is a predictor of PSU, as seen in other studies [25,56]. According to previous studies, depression and anxiety were positive predictors of PSU, with depression score being a more powerful predictor than anxiety [11]. The relationship between depression and anxiety and smartphone dependence can be approached in two ways. The first approach is to identify if problematic smartphone overuse has occurred due to smartphones being used as a means to relieve negative moods, such as depression or anxiety [55]. The second approach is to recognize that excessive use of smartphones leads to anxiety, depression, and sleep problems [43]. Our results support the first approach. In these cases, breaking the relevant mechanism is necessary. Thus, these results are very meaningful clinically. In developing technologies to prevent and manage PSU, it is important to develop content or services that can relieve depression symptoms and anxiety symptoms.

Third, another interesting result is that the link between anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms is very strong. According to previous studies, some factors—avoidance, close relationships, group relationships, sociability, and interpersonal hypersensitivity—are mediators in the relationship between anxiety and later depressive symptoms [57-59]. Additionally, avoidance and interpersonal relationships have been reported to mediate the relationship between early anxiety and depression, and this relationship applies to both symptoms and disorders [12]. In future research, it will be of great clinical significance to deal with avoidance, sociality, and interpersonal hypersensitivity, among other factors, for PSU. A therapeutic approach to social and interpersonal hypersensitivity may encourage functional and healthy smartphone use rather than PSU.

Fourth, consistent with previous studies, the lower an individual’s self-control, the more dependent he/she is on the smartphone [33,60]. Additionally, the higher the ADHD, the more dependence on the smartphone [61,62]. Thus, self-control and ADHD are important risk factors to address in IT technology to help people who use their smartphones excessively.

Finally, we used single indicators of scales such as GAD-7 and PHQ-9 in SEM and confirmed good model fit. For psychological risk factors such as anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms, a total score is often used to assess mental symptoms and disorders. Some previous studies were conducted after carrying out validation and reliability verification with detailed items of each scale and performing SEM analysis with some remaining items [63]. However, in these cases, we can omit some items we want to measure for each factor. Additionally, if the total score is already used when diagnosing patients in psychiatric counseling, it is also possible to consider using the total score of the scale. Scales such as the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 are considered the gold standard of clinically valid scales. It is very wasteful to remove some items for SEM analysis, and using the total score will help researchers properly reflect symptoms. It is desirable to use a single indicator to include as much information as possible and examine the causal relationship; thus, we conducted SEM using the total score of the scale to evaluate each psychological factor as a single indicator [64]. In the marketing field, SEM has long been conducted using a single indicator [65]. There is still controversy over whether multiple or single indicators are best [66], but this can be adapted according to the research situation. This study can be viewed as an example of a structural model that can be used in such cases. We consider this model useful for researchers who have similar concerns.

Although there are meaningful results from this research, there are some limitations. First, we used the term “PSU,” although there are diverse related terms: “excessive smartphone usage,” “smartphone overdependence,” and “smartphone addiction [67].” The choice of term depends on the researcher or research environment. However, Panova and Carbonell [68] suggest that behavior can have similar expressions to addiction in terms of overuse, impulse control problems, and negative consequences, but that does not mean it should be considered an addiction. They also proposed using terms such as “problematic use” when conducting technical behavior research. If there is an accepted unification of terms in the future, it would be desirable to interpret problematic use according to those standardized terms. Second, we used Part A (6 items) of the ASRS-v1.1 to measure ADHD. In the case of ADHD, the score was reflected cross-sectionally, and the onset time point included in the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ADHD were not included in this study. An additional clinician’s evaluation is required to accurately determine adult ADHD. Third, data were collected using a self-response survey. Because the data were not collected under the evaluation of a psychiatrist, it may include errors or mistakes by the respondents. For future studies, it would be more desirable to have verified accurate data accompanied by evaluations from a psychiatrist.

Fourth, in this study, the total score was used only when the measurement items had a total score and cutoff points, and in other cases (BSCS and ASRS-v1.1 Part A), EFA and CFA were conducted and then applied to the SEM. ASRS has 6 items in Part A and Part B. In addition, Part B provides additional clues. If 4 or more items are marked in the darkly shaded boxes of the main 6 items, it can be seen as showing symptoms very similar to ADHD. However, when scoring the checked areas, there are cases where the scores for non-ADHD cases are higher than those for ADHD symptoms. Therefore, it was judged that there are limitations in converting ASRS to a total score and using it in structural equation modeling. Since the 6 questions in Part A best predict the disease and are most suitable for use as a screening tool, the reliability and validity of the 6 items in Part A were reexamined and used. In social science, even for measurements that have been previously proven, the research model is verified after conducting EFA and CFA depending on the subject. Therefore, this study also tried to analyze these items by applying them to the SEM, going beyond the limitations of the application of these items.

Fifth, in this study, anxiety symptoms are not a risk factor for PSU. These results differ from previous studies that reported anxiety is a risk factor for PSU. The discrepancy in previous research results is likely due to sample specificity. The anxiety scores of our study subjects were skewed toward the normal group. The total score on the GAD-7, which measures anxiety symptoms, ranged from 0 to 21. In our data, the mean was 5, the median was 4, and the mode was 0. As shown in Table 2, only 39 (5.6%) of the 691 subjects scored at the severe level (scores 15–21). Future studies should be conducted with a proportion of anxiety symptom groups.

This study identified psychological factors and relationships among them that can prevent overdependence on smartphones among smartphone users in their 20s to 50s: anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, self-control, and ADHD. In particular, the link between anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, and dependence on smartphones was revealed in detail. Key psychological factors can be utilized in developing an app service and other programs to mediate dependence on smartphones.

Supplementary Materials

The Supplement is available with this article at https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0317.

Supplementary Table 1.

S-Scale questionnaire items

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

Patient Health Questionnaire-9

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf

Supplementary Table 4.

Brief Self-Control Scale

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf

Supplementary Table 5.

Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) Symptom Checklist

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-5.pdf

Supplementary Table 6.

Characteristic of single item and variance of error terms

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-6.pdf

Supplementary Table 7.

Descriptive statistics, discriminant validity of self-control and ADHD

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-7.pdf

Supplementary Table 8.

Structural model results (model1_1 and model_2)

pi-2024-0317-Supplementary-Table-8.pdf

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualizations: Jihwan Park, Mi Jung Rho. Data curation: Jihwan Park, Mi Jung Rho. Formal analysis: Mi Jung Rho. Funding acquisition: Mi Jung Rho. Investigation: Jihwan Park, Mi Jung Rho. Methodology: Jihwan Park, Mi Jung Rho. Supervision: Mi Jung Rho. Validation: Jihwan Park. Writing—original draft: Jihwan Park, Mi Jung Rho. Writing—review & editing: Jihwan Park, Mi Jung Rho.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2018R1C1B6007750).

Acknowledgments

None

References

1. Korea Information Society Development Institute. Key results of the Korea media panel survey 2023 [Internet]. Available at: https://library.kisdi.re.kr/main.do/10230/contents/4333447?checkinId=2058449&articleId=1168536. Accessed January 19, 2024. Korean.

2. İnal EE, Demİrcİ k, Çetİntürk A, Akgönül M, Savaş S. Effects of smartphone overuse on hand function, pinch strength, and the median nerve. Muscle Nerve 2015;52:183–188.

3. Paterna A, Alcaraz-Ibáñez M, Aguilar-Parra JM, Salavera C, Demetrovics Z, Griffiths MD. Problematic smartphone use and academic achievement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Addict 2024;13:313–326.

4. Wacks Y, Weinstein AM. Excessive smartphone use is associated with health problems in adolescents and young adults. Front Psychiatry 2021;12:669042.

5. Barbed-Castrejón N, Navaridas-Nalda F, Mason O, Ortuño-Sierra J. Prevalence of phubbing behaviour in school and university students in Spain. Front Psychol 2024;15:1396863.

6. Guan J, Ma W, Liu C. The relationship between cumulative ecological risk and problematic smartphone use among Chinese college students: based on latent profile analysis. Psychol Rep 2025;128:1542–1565.

7. Park JH, Choi JM. Smartphone overdependence and quality of life in college students: focusing on the mediating effect of social withdrawal. Front Public Health 2022;10:997682.

8. Lee YS, Joo JH, Shin J, Nam CM, Park EC. Association between smartphone overdependence and generalized anxiety disorder among Korean adolescents. J Affect Disord 2023;321:108–113.

9. Mancinelli E, Ruocco E, Napolitano S, Salcuni S. A network analysis on self-harming and problematic smartphone use - The role of self-control, internalizing and externalizing problems in a sample of self-harming adolescents. Compr Psychiatry 2022;112:152285.

10. National Information Society Agency. 2019 The survey on smartphone overdependence [Internet]. Available at: https://www.iapc.or.kr/relatedOrgView.do?idx=32&article_id=ICCART_0000000113015. Accessed January 19, 2024. Korean.

11. Matar Boumosleh J, Jaalouk D. Depression, anxiety, and smartphone addiction in university students-A cross sectional study. PLoS One 2017;12:e0182239.

12. Jacobson NC, Newman MG. Anxiety and depression as bidirectional risk factors for one another: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2017;143:1155–1200.

13. Jeong B, Lee JY, Kim BM, Park E, Kwon JG, Kim DJ, et al. Associations of personality and clinical characteristics with excessive Internet and smartphone use in adolescents: a structural equation modeling approach. Addict Behav 2020;110:106485.

14. Elhai JD, Levine JC, Dvorak RD, Hall BJ. Non-social features of smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone use. Comput Human Behav 2017;69:75–82.

15. Alhassan AA, Alqadhib EM, Taha NW, Alahmari RA, Salam M, Almutairi AF. The relationship between addiction to smartphone usage and depression among adults: a cross sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 2018;18:148.

16. Rho MJ, Park J, Na E, Jeong JE, Kim JK, Kim DJ, et al. Types of problematic smartphone use based on psychiatric symptoms. Psychiatry Res 2019;275:46–52.

17. Harris B, Regan T, Schueler J, Fields SA. Problematic mobile phone and smartphone use scales: a systematic review. Front Psychol 2020;11:672.

18. Kim Y, Jeong JE, Cho H, Jung DJ, Kwak M, Rho MJ, et al. Personality factors predicting smartphone addiction predisposition: behavioral inhibition and activation systems, impulsivity, and self-control. PLoS One 2016;11:e0159788.

19. van Deursen AJAM, Bolle CL, Hegner SM, Kommers PAM. Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: the role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Comput Human Behav 2015;45:411–420.

20. Grant JE, Lust K, Chamberlain SR. Problematic smartphone use associated with greater alcohol consumption, mental health issues, poorer academic performance, and impulsivity. J Behav Addict 2019;8:335–342.

21. Islam MR, Mondol AA, Kundu R, Baroi JA, Akter S, Urmi TJ, et al. Prevalence, associated factors and consequence of problematic smartphone use among adolescents and young adults in Bangladesh: a crosssectional study. PLoS One 2024;19:e0308621.

22. Abdulla F, Hossain MM, Huq MN, Hai A, Rahman A, Kabir R, et al. Prevalence, determinants and consequences of problematic smartphone use among preschoolers (3-5 years) from Dhaka, Bangladesh: a cross-sectional investigation. J Affect Disord 2023;329:413–427.

23. Nahas M, Hlais S, Saberian C, Antoun J. Problematic smartphone use among Lebanese adults aged 18–65 years using MPPUS-10. Comput Human Behav 2018;87:348–353.

24. Lee YK, Chang CT, Lin Y, Cheng ZH. The dark side of smartphone usage: psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Comput Human Behav 2014;31:373–383.

25. Kim JH, Seo M, David P. Alleviating depression only to become problematic mobile phone users: can face-to-face communication be the antidote? Comput Human Behav 2015;51:440–447.

26. Rao S, Zisook S. Anxious depression: clinical features and treatment. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2009;11:429–436.

27. Hutton TM, Aaronson ST, Carpenter LL, Pages K, West WS, Kraemer C, et al. The anxiolytic and antidepressant effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with anxious depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2023;84:22m14571.

28. Dey M, Studer J, Schaub MP, Gmel G, Ebert DD, Lee JY, et al. Problematic smartphone use in young Swiss men: its association with problematic substance use and risk factors derived from the pathway model. J Behav Addict 2019;8:326–334.

29. Elhai JD, Dvorak RD, Levine JC, Hall BJ. Problematic smartphone use: a conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology. J Affect Disord 2017;207:251–259.

30. Augner C, Vlasak T, Aichhorn W, Barth A. The association between problematic smartphone use and symptoms of anxiety and depressiona meta-analysis. J Public Health (Oxf) 2023;45:193–201.

31. Jin L, Hao Z, Huang J, Akram HR, Saeed MF, Ma H. Depression and anxiety symptoms are associated with problematic smartphone use under the COVID-19 epidemic: the mediation models. Child Youth Serv Rev 2021;121:105875.

32. Sohn SY, Rees P, Wildridge B, Kalk NJ, Carter B. Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry 2019;19:356.

33. Kim HJ, Min JY, Min KB, Lee TJ, Yoo S. Relationship among family environment, self-control, friendship quality, and adolescents’ smartphone addiction in South Korea: findings from nationwide data. PLoS One 2018;13:e0190896.

34. Fabio RA, Stracuzzi A, Lo Faro R. Problematic smartphone use leads to behavioral and cognitive self-control deficits. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:7445.

35. Fischer-Grote L, Kothgassner OD, Felnhofer A. Risk factors for problematic smartphone use in children and adolescents: a review of existing literature. Neuropsychiatr 2019;33:179–190.

36. West R, Ash C, Dapore A, Kirby B, Malley K, Zhu S. Problematic smartphone use: the role of reward processing, depressive symptoms and self-control. Addict Behav 2021;122:107015.

37. Kwon SJ, Kim Y, Kwak Y. Influence of smartphone addiction and poor sleep quality on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in university students: a cross-sectional study. J Am Coll Health 2022;70:209–215.

38. Shin K, Kim D, Jung Y. Development of Korean smart phone addiction proneness scale for youth and adults Seoul: Korean National Information Society Agency; 2011.

39. Kim D, Lee Y, Lee J, Nam JK, Chung Y. Development of Korean smartphone addiction proneness scale for youth. PLoS One 2014;9:e97920.

40. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1092–1097.

41. Park SJ, Choi HR, Choi JH, Kim KW, Hong JP. [Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)]. Anxiety and Mood 2010;6:119–124. Korean.

42. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers 2004;72:271–324.

43. Adler L, Kessler RC, Spencer T. Adult ADHD self-report scale-v1. 1 (ASRS-v1. 1) symptom checklist New York, NY: World Health Organization; 2003.

44. Rosseel Y, Oberski D, Jorgensen TD, Wilde LD, Byrnes J, Vanbrabant L, et al. Package ‘lavaan’. Retrieved June 2017;17:2017.

45. Lunneborg CE. Book review: psychometric theory: second edition Jum C. Nunnally New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978, 701 pages. Applied Psychological Measurement 1979;3:279–280.

46. Rho MJ, Choi IY, Lee J. Predictive factors of telemedicine service acceptance and behavioral intention of physicians. Int J Med Inform 2014;83:559–571.

47. Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research 1998;295:295–336.

48. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis, 7th Edition New York: Pearson Education Limited; 2009.

49. Na E, Lee H, Choi I, Kim DJ. Comorbidity of Internet gaming disorder and alcohol use disorder: a focus on clinical characteristics and gaming patterns. Am J Addict 2017;26:326–334.

50. Mehroof M, Griffiths MD. Online gaming addiction: the role of sensation seeking, self-control, neuroticism, aggression, state anxiety, and trait anxiety. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2010;13:313–316.

51. Kim EJ, Namkoong K, Ku T, Kim SJ. The relationship between online game addiction and aggression, self-control and narcissistic personality traits. Eur Psychiatry 2008;23:212–218.

52. Mohammadkhani Sh, Yeganeh T, Karimpour K. Role of religious orientation and self-control in prediction of drug addiction potential. Journal of Health and Care 2015;17:248–259.

53. Li Y, Chen S, Hou X, Zhou N. Does exhaustion lead to problematic smartphone use or vice versa?—A loss of control perspective. Int J Ment Health Addiction 2026;24:132–150.

54. Parent N, Bond T, Wu A, Shapka J. Predicting patterns of problematic smartphone use among university students: a latent class analysis. Hum Behav Emerg Technol 2022;2022:4287600.

55. Choi SW, Kim DJ, Choi JS, Ahn H, Choi EJ, Song WY, et al. Comparison of risk and protective factors associated with smartphone addiction and Internet addiction. J Behav Addict 2015;4:308–314.

56. Smetaniuk P. A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and prediction of problematic cell phone use. J Behav Addict 2014;3:41–53.

57. Jacobson NC, Newman MG. Perceptions of close and group relationships mediate the relationship between anxiety and depression over a decade later. Depress Anxiety 2016;33:66–74.

58. Jacobson NC, Newman MG. Avoidance mediates the relationship between anxiety and depression over a decade later. J Anxiety Disord 2014;28:437–445.

59. Starr LR, Hammen C, Connolly NP, Brennan PA. Does relational dysfunction mediate the association between anxiety disorders and later depression? Testing an interpersonal model of comorbidity. Depress Anxiety 2014;31:77–86.

60. Sok SR, Seong MH, Ryu MH. Differences of self-control, daily life stress, and communication skills between smartphone addiction risk group and general group in Korean nursing students. Psychiatr Q 2019;90:1–9.

61. Kim SG, Park J, Kim HT, Pan Z, Lee Y, McIntyre RS. The relationship between smartphone addiction and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity in South Korean adolescents. Ann Gen Psychiatry 2019;18:1.

62. Seo M, Kim JH, David P. Always connected or always distracted? ADHD symptoms and social assurance explain problematic use of mobile phone and multicommunicating. J Comput Mediat Commun 2015;20:667–681.

63. Kim E, Cho I, Kim EJ. Structural equation model of smartphone addiction based on adult attachment theory: mediating effects of loneliness and depression. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2017;11:92–97.

64. Kelloway KE. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: a researcher’s guide Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.

65. Petrescu M. Marketing research using single-item indicators in structural equation models. J Market Anal 2013;1:99–117.

66. Hayduk LA, Littvay L. Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:159.

67. Park J, Jeong JE, Park SY, Rho MJ. Development of the smartphone addiction risk rating score for a smartphone addiction management application. Front Public Health 2020;8:485.

68. Panova T, Carbonell X. Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? J Behav Addict 2018;7:252–259.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Variables	Frequency (%)	p (for ANOVA)
Sex		0.889
Male	335 (48.5)
Female	356 (51.5)
Age (years)		0.003^**
20–29	174 (25.2)
30–39	169 (24.5)
40–49	171 (24.7)
50–59	177 (25.6)
Marital status		0.112
Single	328 (47.5)
Marriage	342 (49.5)
Other (e.g., divorced, separated, or widowed)	21 (3.0)
Education		0.517
High school graduation or less	124 (17.9)
University graduation or above (including college students)	567 (82.1)
Monthly salary (USD)		0.572
Under $1,825.82	77 (11.1)
$1,825.82–$3,651.63	246 (35.6)
$3,651.64–$5,477.45	214 (31.0)
Over $5,477.45	154 (22.3)
Location		0.454
Seoul	225 (32.6)
Capital region (Gyeonggi-do, Incheon city)	189 (27.4)
Outside the capital region and Seoul	277 (40.1)
Problematic smartphone use		<0.001^***
High-risk group (over 44 points)	94 (13.6)
Potential-risk group (40–43)	117 (16.9)
Normal group (15–39)	480 (69.5)
Anxiety symptoms group		<0.001^***
None (0–4 points)	377 (54.6)
Mild (5–9)	184 (26.6)
Moderate (10–14)	91 (13.2)
Severe (15–21)	39 (5.6)
Depression symptoms group		<0.001^***
None (0–4 points)	286 (41.4)
Mild (5–9)	200 (28.9)
Moderate (10–14)	110 (15.9)
Moderately severe (15–19)	64 (9.3)
Severe (20–21)	31 (4.5)

Variables	1	2	Communality	Cronbach’s α	AVE	CR
Self-control				0.801	0.503	0.793
SC12	0.800	0.137	0.659
SC10	0.766	0.262	0.656
SC2	0.763	0.103	0.593
SC9	0.753	0.215	0.613
ADHD				0.758	0.527	0.758
ADHD1	0.195	0.813	0.700
ADHD2	0.238	0.813	0.718
ADHD3	0.114	0.778	0.619
Eigenvalue	2.484	2.073
% of variance	35.480	29.617
Cumulative %	35.480	65.098
Number of items	4/13	3/6	7

Variable	Scale	N	Type
Problematic smartphone use	Korean Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale for Adults (S-Scale)	15	Single indicator (total score)
Anxiety symptoms	Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7	7
Depression symptoms	Patient Health Questionnaire-9	9
Self-control	Brief Self-Control Scale	13	Multi indicator
ADHD	Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) Part A	6	Multi indicator