Evaluation of Internet addiction and the quality of life of Brazilian adolescents from public and private schools

CRUZ, Fernanda Alves Davidoff; SCATENA, Adriana; ANDRADE, André Luiz Monezi; MICHELI, Denise de

doi:10.1590/1982-02752018000200008

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY • Estud. psicol. 35 (2) • Apr-Jun 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000200008 copy

Evaluation of Internet addiction and the quality of life of Brazilian adolescents from public and private schools

Avaliação da dependência de Internet e qualidade de vida em adolescentes Brasileiros de escolas públicas e particulares

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study evaluated the profile of public and private high school students (N = 254, M_age = 15.1, SD = 1.3) in the city of São Paulo in relation to their Internet use patterns and quality of life. We used the Internet Addiction Test and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory. About 70% of the students had moderate Internet addiction. Those students from public school showed higher scores of Internet addiction (p < 0.001) than students from private schools. Regarding the quality of life, those from private school showed better scores regarding academic performance (p < 0.01) and worse scores in social aspect (p < 0.05). The data showed a strong association between Internet addiction and poor levels of quality of life, as observed in studies from other countries.

Abstract
Internet addiction; Adolescent behavior; Quality of life

Sociodemographic data		Public		95% CI	Private		95% CI	Test	p	Effect size
Sociodemographic data		n	%	95% CI	n	%	95% CI	Test	p	Effect size
Gender
	Male	76	48	[0.39, 0.55]	56	59	[0.48, 0.68]	2.96	0.08	0.11
	Female	83	52	[0.44, 0.60]	39	41	[0.31,0.51]
Economic class								157.95	^ p < 0.001,	0.78
	A	6	4	[0.01,0.08]	81	86	[0.77, 0.92]
	B	41	26	[0.19, 0.33]	13	13	[0.06, 0.21]
	C	84	53	[0.44, 0.60]	1	1	[0.00, 0.05]
	D	28	18	[0.12, 0.25]	0	0	[0.00, 0.00]
School delay								87.91	^* ***** p < 0.05. Public school (n = 159), Private school (n = 95).	0.58
	No delay	104	66	[0.58, 0.63]	85	90	[0.82, 0.95]
	1 or 2 years	50	31	[0.23, 0.38]	9	9	[0.04, 0.17]
	3 years or more	5	3	[0.01,0.07]	1	1	[0.00, 0.05]
Currently working								18.92	^* ***** p < 0.05. Public school (n = 159), Private school (n = 95).	0.27
	No	124	78	[0.70, 0.84]	95	98	[0.92, 0.99]
	Yes	35	22	[0.15, 0.29]	2	2	[0.00, 0.07]
Lives with								10.97	^* Note: * p < 0.01,	0.20
	Father and mother	83	53	[0.44, 0.60]	72	74	[0.63, 0.82]
	Father only	8	5	[0.02, 0.09]	4	4	[0.01,0.10]
	Mother only	54	35	[0.27, 0.43]	17	17	[0.09, 0.25]
	Family members/institution	11	7	[0.03, 0.12]	5	5	[0.01,0.11]
Relationship with those with whom the student lives								5.17	0.07	0.14
	Good	120	75	[0.67, 0.81]	82	88	[0.80, 0.94]
	Normal	28	19	[0.13, 0.25]	13	11	[0.05, 0.18]
	Poor	10	6	[0.03, 0.11]	1	1	[0.00, 0.06]

Patterns and habits	Public		95% Cl	Private		95% Cl	Test	p	Effect size
Patterns and habits	n	%	95% Cl	n	%	95% Cl	Test	p	Effect size
Level of Internet addiction							13.89	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.23
No addiction	6	3	[0.01, 0.07]	3	3	[0.00, 0.08]
Mild	12	7	[0.03, 0.12]	20	22	[0.14, 0.31]
Moderate	104	66	[0.58, 0.73]	62	65	[0.54, 0.74]
Severe	37	24	[0.17, 0.31]	10	10	[0.05, 0.18]
Do you use a smartphone/tablet during meals?							49.68	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.44
No	58	37	[0.29, 0.45]	36	37	[0.27, 0.47]
Yes, almost always	84	52.5	[0.44, 0.60]	16	18.5	[0.11, 0.28]
Yes, but rarely	17	10.5	[0.06, 0.16]	43	44.5	[0.34, 0.54]
Do you use a smartphone/tablet when you go to the bathroom?							17.40	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.26
No	105	66.5	[0.58, 0.74]	40	42	[0.32, 0.52]
Yes, almost always	36	23	[0.16, 0.30]	45	48	[0.38, 0.58]
Yes, but rarely	18	10.5	[0.06, 0.16]	10	10	[0.05, 0.18]
What do you spend most time on when using a smartphone/tablet? Social networking sites	73	45	[0.37, 0.53]	41	42	[0.32, 0.52]	3.89	0.42	0.12
Messaging apps	56	35	[0.27, 0.43]	32	30	[0.21, 0.40]
Chat rooms and forums	3	2	[0.00, 0.05]	1	1	[0.00, 0.05]
Email	11	6	[0.03, 0.11]	5	5	[0.01, 0.12]
Other (search sites, games)	14	8	[0.04, 0.13]	16	16	[0.09, 0.24]
Do you access the Internet when with friends?							3.10	0.07	0.11
No	19	12	[0.07, 0.18]	5	6	[0.02, 0.12]
Yes	140	88	[0.81, 0.92]	90	94	[0.86, 0.97]
If yes, how often?							24.79	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.31
All the time	14	10	[0.05, 0.15]	9	10	[0.05, 0.18]
Most of the time	42	30	[0.23, 0.37]	24	27	[0.18, 0.37]
Occasionally	84	60	[0.52, 0.67]	57	63	[0.52, 0.72]
What are the advantages of a virtual conversation as opposed to face-to-face^a a Descriptive levels of Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for multiple choice responses. Public school (n = 159), Private school (n = 95). The effect size (Cramer’s V Test) was based on the following degrees of freedom: df = 1 (0 to 0.1 = small effect); (0.11 to 0.3 = medium effect); (0.31 to 1, high effect); df = 2 (0 to 0.07 = small effect); (0.08 to 0.21 = medium effect); (0.22 to 1, high effect). df = 3 (0 to 0.06 = small effect) (0.07 to 0.17 = medium effect) (0.18 to 1.0, high effect); df = 4 (0 to 0.05 = small effect) (0.06 to 0.13 = medium effect) (0.14 to 1.0, high effect).
Reduced shyness	93	59	[0.51, 0.66]	59	61	[0.50, 0.70]	0.33	0.56	0.03
I don't have to be present (off-line)	5	3.5	[0.01, 0.08]	21	23	[0.15, 0.32]	23.26	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.30
Control the length of conversation	20	12	[0.07, 0.18]	28	30	[0.21, 0.40]	11.07	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.20
Distance not a problem	41	25.5	[0.19, 0.33]	40	43	[0.33, 0.53]	7.29	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.16
Not feeling alone	36	23	[0.16, 0.30]	3	3	[0.00, 0.08]	17.36	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.26
There are no advantages	10	6	[0.03, 0.11]	17	17.5	[0.10, 0.27]	8.43	^* Note: * p < 0.001.	0.18
Do your parents limit the time you spend on the Internet?							14.16		0.23
No, they do not limit it	95	59.5	[0.51, 0.67]	78	82	[0.73, 0.89]
Yes, they limit it	48	30	[0.23, 0.37]	12	13	[0.06, 0.21]
They limit it but I go online without permission	17	10.5	[0.06, 0.16]	5	5	[0.01, 0.11]

Instruments		Public		Private		Test	P	Effect size	Public	Private	Public	Private	Public	Private
		M	SD	M	SD	Test	P	Effect size	1^st Quartlle		Median		3^rd Quartlle
PedsQL - Physical
	Mild	91.0	6.5	89.0	12.5	1.67	0.09	0.20	84.5	85.0	90.5	92.0	97.0	99.0
	Moderate	87.0	12.0	90.0	11.0	1.98	^* Note: * p < 0.05,	0.26	78.0	86.0	90.5	94.0	97.0	100.0
	Severe	84.0	14.5	75.0	16.0	5.11		0.58	75.0	64.0	89.0	76.5	96.0	86.0
PedsQL – Emotional
	Mild	77.0	22.0	82.5	18.0	2.05	^* ***** p < 0.001.	0.27	59.0	70.0	80.0	85.0	100.0	100.0
	Moderate	74.5	18.0	73.5	20.0	0.41	0.68	0.05	65.0	60.0	75.0	75.0	90.0	90.0
	Severe	66.0	20.0	53.0	24.0	4.64	^* ***** p < 0.001.	0.58	51.5	34.0	65.0	52.5	84.0	69.0
PedsQL – Social
	Mild	90.0	16.0	92.0	10.5	1.08	0.27	0.14	79.0	86.5	100.0	97.5	100.0	100.0
	Moderate	90.0	12.0	93.0	9.5	2.07	^* Note: * p < 0.05,	0.27	80.0	90.0	95.0	95.0	100.0	100.0
	Severe	83.0	16.0	83.0	10.5	0.00	1.00	0.00	82.5	75.0	90.0	80.0	100.0	92.5
PedsQL – Educational
	Mild	77.0	17.5	82.0	14.0	2.36	^* ***** p < 0.001.	0.31	61.5	75.0	80.0	85.0	95.0	90.0
	Moderate	77.0	16.5	70.0	16.5	3.27	^* ***** p < 0.001.	0.42	65.0	60.0	80.0	70.0	90.0	85.0
	Severe	71.0	13.0	54.0	13.0	10.08		1.30	60.0	44.0	70.0	55.0	80.0	60.0
PedsQL – Total
	Mild	85.0	9.0	86.5	10.5	1.20	0.22	0.09	78.0	84.0	84.0	87.5	94.5	95.5
	Moderate	82.5	11.0	82.5	10.0	0.00	1.00	0.00	74.0	76.0	84.0	82.5	90.0	89.0
	Severe	78.0	11.5	67.5	13.0	6.70	^* ***** p < 0.001.	0.85	71.5	57.5	79.5	68.0	87.0	74.0

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas Núcleo de Editoração SBI - Campus II, Av. John Boyd Dunlop, s/n. Prédio de Odontologia, 13060-900 Campinas - São Paulo Brasil, Tel./Fax: +55 19 3343-7223 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: psychologicalstudies@puc-campinas.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN01] ^{Note: *}
p < 0.01,

[TFN02] ^**
p < 0.001,

[TFN03] ^***
p < 0.05. Public school (n = 159), Private school (n = 95).