Translation and Validation of the Nomophobia Questionnaire in the Italian Language: Exploratory Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nomophobia, which is a neologism derived from the combination of "no mobile," "phone," and "phobia" is considered to be a modern situational phobia and indicates a fear of feeling disconnected. OBJECTIVE: No psychometric scales are available in Italian for investigating such a construct. We therefore planned a translation and validation study of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q), which is an instrument developed by Yildirim and Correia. Subjects were recruited via an online survey using a snowball approach. METHODS: The NMP-Q was translated from English into Italian using a classical "backwards and forwards" procedure. In order to explore the underlying factor structure of the translated questionnaire, an exploratory factor analysis was carried out. A principal component analysis approach with varimax rotation was performed. Multivariate regression analyses were computed to shed light on the psychological predictors of nomophobia. RESULTS: A sample of 403 subjects volunteered to take part in the study. The average age of participants was 27.91 years (standard deviation 8.63) and the sample was comprised of 160 males (160/403, 39.7%) and 243 females (243/403, 60.3%). Forty-five subjects spent less than 1 hour on their mobile phone per day (45/403, 11.2%), 94 spent between 1 and 2 hours (94/403, 23.3%), 69 spent between 2 and 3 hours (69/403, 17.1%), 58 spent between 3 and 4 hours (58/403, 14.4%), 48 spent between 4 and 5 hours (48/403, 11.9%), 29 spent between 5 and 7 hours (29/403, 7.2%), 36 spent between 7 and 9 hours (36/403, 8.9%), and 24 spent more than 10 hours (24/403, 6.0%). The eigenvalues and scree plot supported a 3-factorial nature of the translated questionnaire. The NMP-Q showed an overall Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.95 (0.94, 0.89, and 0.88 for the three factors). The first factor explained up to 23.32% of the total variance, while the second and third factors explained up to 23.91% and 18.67% of the variance, respectively. The total NMP-Q score correlated with the number of hours spent on a mobile phone. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of the NMP-Q proved to be reliable.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".