Research design and setting
These associations were examined in the study using a descriptive, cross-sectional study design. Additionally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was selected due to the convenience, accessibility, and availability of the researcher in Saudi Arabia.
Sample size
The target population in Saudi Arabia (about 13,300,000) and the prevalence of severe nomophobia (21.9%) [27], were used to determine the sample size. Using a confidence level of 95%, test power of 80%, and design effect 2. Thus, the sample size was determined to be 526 subjects using the Open-Epi version 3.0 software package [28]. Those that are enthusiastic to join in the research and those who are older than 18 years old are the inclusion criteria. Individuals under the age of 18 are excluded.
Data collection tools
A self-administered questionnaire form was used to gather the data. This questionnaire included two valid standardized tools, in addition to a section inquiring about respondents’ demographic information and their profiles on Internet use, including inquiries on their age, gender, marital status, level of education, income, and whether they feel good about relationships with others, the duration of their daily mobile Internet use, the time at which they use the Internet most, and their purpose for using the Internet.
The first tool
The nomophobia survey (NMP-Q) was developed by Yildirim and Correia [10], and without any modifications, the Arabic version was used to carry out the current investigation [29]. It contains 20 items rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating robustly disagree and 7 indicating strongly agree (or totally agree). The four dimensions identified in this questionnaire are separated into questions inquiring about the inability to obtain information (items 1–4): dissatisfaction caused by the inability to look for information on the Internet using a smartphone or access information at any time; giving up convenience (items 5–9): the convenience and comfort that smartphones bring, particularly in terms of battery, coverage, and credits; the inability to communicate (items 10–15): feelings about failing to communicate immediately and being unable to use instant communication services; the inability to communicate (items 10–15): feelings about being unable to use instant communication services; feelings about losing connectedness (items 16–20): the emotions associated with a loss of ubiquitous connectivity. A higher score denotes a more severe case of nomophobia, and the total score ranges from 20 to 140. Specifically, a score of 20 or lower indicates no nomophobia; a score of at least 20 but not more than 60 is considered mild; a nomophobia score of at least 60 but not more than 100 indicates a moderate level; An extreme level is indicated by a score of greater than or equal to 100. Further, the ideal Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.88 was discovered in previous research [30]. The tool, therefore, had strong internal consistency in the current investigation, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.949.
The second tool
In this study, the brief form of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-6) was used. It is one of the most extensively used scales for assessing social isolation and loneliness [31]. The original scale has 20 statements; however, the ULS-6 only has 6 [32]. Responses are given on a four-point Likert scale, with 1 meaning never and 4 meaning often. A higher score indicates greater loneliness. As per the suggestion of a previous study, the Arabic form of the ULS-6 was used for this study without any amendment [33]. In their study, Cronbach’s standardized alpha was 0.76, signifying that the translated scale was reliable [33]. In the current study, the alpha coefficient was 0.703.
Pilot study
Beforehand the main investigation, a pilot study was conducted on 10% of the calculated study sample to determine the lucidity of the scales, the practicality of the study, and the applicability of the data collection tools. It was also used to assess the scales’ reliability. According to the results of this pilot study, the typical time essential to answer the tools ranged from 10 to 15 min, based on the respondent’s level of knowledge and cooperation. The questionnaire was finalized using the findings of the pilot study, and the participants were excluded from the main study population.
Study procedure
The researcher uses social networks to electronically invite potential respondents to participate in the pilot and main investigations. An electronic questionnaire was used to collect data, which took about 10–15 min to complete. The online survey was created using Google Forms and was sent to participants through various social media sites (WhatsApp, Messenger, Facebook, and Imo). All applicable national data protection standards were followed during the data handling operations. There was no deceit in this study, and contributors received a debriefing at the end of the questionnaire. Additionally, only non-personally identifiable information was collected for the study. Finally, the data were collected over one month (5th March to 5th April 2022).
Ethical considerations
Participants were not pressured into participating in this study, and they did not receive any type of financial remuneration for participating. Before answering the questionnaire, participants were required to read and sign an informed consent form. Subjects were also told about the type of study being conducted, as well as its objective, before participating. In addition, subjects were given the researcher’s contact information and affiliations, and they were knowledgeable of their right to decline to participate in or discontinue it at whatever time. By using questionnaire identification numbers, potential breaches of confidentiality were mitigated; nonetheless, no identifying information, such as names, email addresses, or cell phone numbers, was collected from the participants, and their responses were fully nameless. No injury or risk, other than discomfort or inconvenience, to the subjects, was anticipated.
Statistical analysis
All data were gathered, processed, and statistically examined utilizing 2015’s IBM Corp. (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 23.0, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). The mean, standard deviation, and range were used to communicate quantitative data, whereas a percentage was used to represent qualitative data. To evaluate the correlation between the different study variables, Spearman's correlation coefficient was determined. In this case, a + sign denoted a positive correlation, but a (-) sign denoted a negative correlation. A strong association was also suggested by values close to 1, while a weak correlation was shown by values close to 0. As multiple linear regression is used to describe data and explain the link between one dependent continuous variable and one or more independent variables, it was employed as predictive analysis. All tests were two-sided and were deemed to be negligible statistically. Last but not least, a p value of 0.05 or higher was regarded as statistically significant, whereas a p value of 0.05 or below was regarded as statistically insignificant.