Smartphone Addiction among University Students and Its Relationship with Academic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Smartphone use is almost universally relied on among college students. Whether smartphone addiction among college students has a negative predictive effect on academic performance is hardly studied. Previous research found an apparent association between smartphone use and academic achievement partly explained by the nature of the task the student is engaged in when using a smartphone. This study aims to assess the relationship between smartphone addiction and students’ academic performance controlling for important potential confounding variables.METHODS: A sample of 688 undergraduate students was randomly selected from Notre Dame University, Lebanon. Students were asked to fill out a questionnaire that included a) questions on variables related to socio-demographics, academics, smartphone use, and lifestyle behaviors; and b) a 26-item Smartphone Addiction Inventory (SPAI) Scale. Multiple logistic regression was performed to assess the independent association between smartphone addiction and cumulative grade point average (GPA).RESULTS: 49% reported smartphone use for at least 5 hours during a weekday. Controlling for confounding effects in the model, the association between total SPAI score and GPA did not reach statistical significance, whereas alcohol drinking (OR= 2.10, p=0.026), age at first use of smartphone (OR=1.20, p=0.042), use of smartphone for study-related purposes (OR=0.31, p=0.000), class (OR=0.35 (senior vs. sophomore standing), p=0.024), and faculty (ORs of 0.38 and 0.35 (engineering and humanities, respectively, vs. business students)) were found to be independent predictors of reporting a GPA of < 3.CONCLUSION: Findings from our study can be used to better inform college administrators and faculty about most-at- risk groups of students who shall be targeted in any intervention designed to enhance low academic performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".