Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-3
Assessing the Two Sources of Construct-Relevant Psychometric Multidimensionality of the Nomophobia Questionnaire: The Integrated Framework of Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling
The current study aimed at investigating the two sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q), applying the newly developed bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (B-ESEM) approach. We first contrasted several CFA and ESEM models to test the psychometric multidimensionality due to the fallibility of indicators. Then, we compared the first-order structures with those specifying both global and specific factors to test the coexistence of hierarchically ordered factors. Results from 469 participants to the 20-item questionnaire showed the superiority of a B-ESEM representation with a well-defined G-factor and four weaker S-factors. On a methodological level, our findings provide additional support for the utility of using B-ESEM’s integrative perspective to better capture the complexity of multidimensional constructs.
AdawiM.BragazziN. L.Argumosa-VillarL.Boada-GrauJ.Vigil-ColetA.YildirimC.Del PuenteG.WatadA. (2018). Translation and validation of the nomophobia questionnaire in the Italian language: Exploratory factor analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(1), Article e24. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9186
2.
Al-BalhanE. M.KhabbacheH.WatfaA.ReT. S.ZerbettoR.BragazziN. L. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic version of the nomophobia questionnaire: Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis–implications from a pilot study in Kuwait among university students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S169918
3.
ArpaciI. (2022). Gender differences in the relationship between problematic internet use and nomophobia. Current Psychology, 41(9), 6558–6567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01160-x
4.
ArpaciI.BaloğluM.KesiciŞ. (2019). A multi-group analysis of the effects of individual differences in mindfulness on nomophobia. Information Development, 35(2), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917745350
5.
ArpaciI.BaloğluM.Özteke KozanH. İ.KesiciŞ. (2017). Individual differences in the relationship between attachment and nomophobia among college students: The mediating role of mindfulness. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(12), Article e404. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8847
BottesiG.GhisiM.AltoèG.ConfortiE.MelliG.SicaC. (2015). The Italian version of the depression anxiety stress scales-21: Factor structure and psychometric properties on community and clinical samples. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 60, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.04.005
8.
BragazziN. L.Del PuenteG. (2014). A proposal for including nomophobia in the new DSM-V. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 7, 155–160. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S41386
9.
BulutA.SengulH. (2023). The moderating role of gender in the relationship between nomophobia and social interaction anxiety in university students. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2191079
10.
BychkovD.YoungS. D. (2018). Facing up to nomophobia: A systematic review of mobile phone apps that reduce smartphone usage. Big Data in Engineering Applications, 161–171.
11.
Caba-MachadoV.Díaz-LópezA.Baridon-ChauvieD.MachimbarrenaJ. M.Ortega-BarónJ.González-CabreraJ. (2023). Nomophobia in Mexico: Validation of the nomophobia questionnaire (NMP-Q) and cross-cultural comparison with Spain. Current Psychology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04451-1
12.
Caba-MachadoV.MachimbarrenaJ. M.Díaz-LópezA.Sevilla-FernándezD.Pérez-SanchoC.González-CabreraJ. (2023). Nomophobia questionnaire short-form: Psychometric properties and longitudinal association with anxiety, stress, and depression in adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2215626
13.
Christopher WestlandJ. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
14.
CoenenM.GörlichY. (2022). Exploring nomophobia with a German adaption of the nomophobia questionnaire (NMP-QD). PLoS One, 17(12), Article e0279379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279379
15.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
16.
CookR. M. (2021). Addressing missing data in quantitative counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2019.1711037
17.
DeVellisR. F.ThorpeC. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
18.
DueberD. M. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models.
19.
FaraciP.LockM.WheelerR. (2013). Assessing leadership decision-making styles: Psychometric properties of the leadership judgement indicator. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 6, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S53713
20.
FaraciP.TirritoA. (2013). Fifty years studying the beck depression inventory (BDI) factorial stability without consistent results: A further contribution. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 10(6), 274–279.
21.
ForgaysD. K.HymanI.SchreiberJ. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053
22.
GalhardoA.LoureiroD.Massano-CardosoI.CunhaM. (2022). Adaptation of the European Portuguese version of the nomophobia questionnaire for adolescents, factor structure and psychometric properties. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00754-9
23.
GalhardoA.LoureiroD.RaimundoE.Massano-CardosoI.CunhaM. (2020). Assessing nomophobia: Validation study of the European Portuguese version of the nomophobia questionnaire. Community Mental Health Journal, 56(8), 1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-020-00600-z
24.
GezginD. M.CakirO.YildirimS. (2018). The relationship between levels of nomophobia prevalence and internet addiction among high school students: The factors influencing nomophobia. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.383153
25.
GezginD. M.HamutogluN. B.Sezen-GultekinG.AyasT. (2018). The relationship between nomophobia and loneliness among Turkish adolescents. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.409265
26.
GignacG. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006
27.
GnardellisC.NotaraV.VagkaE.GialamasV.LagiouA. (2023). Validity of the Greek NMP-Q and sociodemographic determinants of nomophobia among university students. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(4), 842–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049139
28.
González-CabreraJ.León-MejíaA.Pérez-SanchoC.CalveteE. (2017). Adaptation of the nomophobia questionnaire (NMP-Q) to Spanish in a sample of adolescents. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 45(4), 137–144.
29.
HayesA. F.CouttsJ. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
30.
HowardJ. L.GagnéM.MorinA. J.ForestJ. (2018). Using bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling to test for a continuum structure of motivation. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2638–2664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316645653
31.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
32.
León-MejíaA.CalveteE.Patino-AlonsoC.MachimbarrenaJ. M.Gonzalez-CabreraJ. (2021). Nomophobia questionnaire (NMP-Q): Factorial structure and cut-off points for the Spanish version. Adicciones, 33(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.1316
33.
MaJ.LiuC. (2021). Evaluation of the factor structure of the Chinese version of the nomophobia questionnaire. Current Psychology, 40(3), 1367–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0071-9
34.
MaiY.ZhangZ.WenZ. (2018). Comparing exploratory structural equation modeling and existing approaches for multiple regression with latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(5), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1444993
35.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.GraysonD. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-OlivaresA.McArdleJ. J. (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
36.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
37.
MarshH. W.LiemG. A. D.MartinA. J.MorinA. J.NagengastB. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 322–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657
38.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.MorinA. J.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227
39.
MarshH. W.MorinA. J.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
40.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220
41.
McNeishD. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
42.
MisuracaR.TeuscherU.FaraciP. (2016). Is more choice always worse? Age differences in the overchoice effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1118107
43.
MorinA. J.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
44.
MorinA. J.ArensA. K.TranA.CaciH. (2016). Exploring sources of construct‐relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tutorial and illustration using the composite scale of morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 25(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1485
45.
MuthénL.MuthénB. (1998). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén.
46.
PereraH. N.GangulyR. (2018). Construct validity of scores from the connor–davidson resilience scale in a sample of postsecondary students with disabilities. Assessment, 25(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116646444
47.
PommierE.NeffK. D.Tóth-KirályI. (2020). The development and validation of the compassion scale. Assessment, 27(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119874108
48.
ReiseS. P.MorizotJ.HaysR. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7
49.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
50.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
51.
Rodríguez-GarcíaA.-M.Moreno-GuerreroA.-J.Lopez BelmonteJ. (2020). Nomophobia: An individual’s growing fear of being without a smartphone—a systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020580
52.
SantlL.BrajkovicL.KopilašV. (2022). Relationship between nomophobia, various emotional difficulties, and distress factors among students. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(7), 716–730. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12070053
53.
SchmittT. A.SassD. A.ChappelleW.ThompsonW. (2018). Selecting the “best” factor structure and moving measurement validation forward: An illustration. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(4), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1449116
54.
SicaC.MusoniI.Rocco ChiriL.BisiB.LolliV.SighinolfiC. (2007). Social Phobia scale (SPS) e social interaction anxiety scale (SIAS): Traduzione e adattamento italiano. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 252, 59–71.
55.
SilvaP.MachadoM. d. O. S.EstanislauA. M.PimentelC. E.FonsêcaP.MedeirosE. (2020). Nomophobia questionnaire: Propriedades psicométricas para o contexto brasileiro. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 55(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP55.2.12
StuckyB. D.EdelenM. O. (2014). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In Handbook of item response theory modeling (pp. 201–224). Routledge Handsbook Online.
58.
Tóth-KirályI.MorinA. J.BőtheB.OroszG.RigóA. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of need fulfillment: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling representation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1374867
59.
TriscariM.FaraciP.D’AngeloV.UrsoV. (2011). Paura di volare: Struttura fattoriale di due questionari. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale, 17(2), 211–226.
60.
ValentiG. D.BottaroR.FaraciP. (2022). Effects of difficulty in handling emotions and social interactions on nomophobia: Examining the mediating role of feelings of loneliness. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00888-w
61.
ValentiG. D.FaraciP. (2021). Identifying predictive factors in compliance with the COVID-19 containment measures: A mediation analysis. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1325–1338. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S323617
62.
WangJ.WangX. (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley and Sons.
63.
YildirimC.CorreiaA.-P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
