The Impact of Problematic Internet Use on Adolescent Loneliness-Chain Mediation Effects of Social Support and Family Communication

Figures & data

Figure 1 Research conceptual mode.

Table 1 Description of the Distribution of Sample Characteristics

Variant	Options (as in Computer Software Settings)	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Distinguishing between the sexes	Male	1167	46.9
	Women	1316	53.1
Current address	Cities and towns	1757	70.8
	Non-urban	726	29.2

Table 2 KMO and Bartlett’s Test

KMO Quantity of Sample Suitability		0.949
Bartlett’s spherical test	Approximate chi-square	50,671.767
	Degrees of freedom	231
	Significance	<0.001

Table 3 Total Variance Explained by Each Scale

Component	Initial EIGENVALUE			Extract the Sum of the Squares of the Loads			Rotational Load Sum of Squares
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	9.490	43.135	43.135	9.490	43.135	43.135	7.974	36.247	36.247
2	4.502	20.465	63.600	4.502	20.465	63.600	4.439	20.175	56.423
3	1.840	8.363	71.963	1.840	8.363	71.963	2.511	11.414	67.837
4	1.506	6.845	78.808	1.506	6.845	78.808	2.414	10.971	78.808

Table 4 Results of Convergent Validity and Combined Reliability Tests for Each Dimension of the Scale

Pathway Relationship			Estimate	AVE	CR	AVE Square Root	Cronbach’s α
WT1	--->	Problematic Internet Use	0.792	0.666	0.923	0.816	0.922
WT2	--->	Problematic Internet Use	0.854
WT3	--->	Problematic Internet Use	0.831
WT4	--->	Problematic Internet Use	0.791
WT5	--->	Problematic Internet Use	0.781
WT6	--->	Problematic Internet Use	0.845
ZC1	--->	Perceived Social Support	0.871	0.765	0.907	0.875	0.907
ZC2	--->	Perceived Social Support	0.879
ZC3	--->	Perceived Social Support	0.873
GT1	--->	Family communication	0.866	0.773	0.972	0.879	0.971
GT2	--->	Family communication	0.891
GT3	--->	Family communication	0.868
GT4	--->	Family communication	0.869
GT5	--->	Family communication	0.896
GT6	--->	Family communication	0.903
GT7	--->	Family communication	0.884
GT8	--->	Family communication	0.899
GT9	--->	Family communication	0.840
GT10	--->	Family communication	0.885
GD1	--->	Loneliness	0.873	0.743	0.897	0.962	0.896
GD2	--->	Loneliness	0.878
GD3	--->	Loneliness	0.834

Table 5 Model Fitness Test Results

Norm	Reference Standard	Actual Results
CMIN/DF	1–3 is excellent, 3–5 is good	4.891
RMSEA	< 0.05 is excellent, < 0.08 is good	0.040
GFI	> 0.9 is excellent, > 0.8 is good	0.965
TLI	> 0.9 is excellent, > 0.8 is good	0.982
IFI	> 0.9 is excellent, > 0.8 is good	0.985
CFI	> 0.9 is excellent, > 0.8 is good	0.985

Table 6 Results of Model Path Relationship Hypothesis Testing

Pathway Relationship	Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P-value	Reach A Verdict
Problematic Internet Use→ Perceived Social Support	− 0.109	0.030	− 4.952	< 0.001	Be in favor of
Problematic Internet Use→ Family Communication	− 0.158	0.016	− 8.447	< 0.001	Be in favor of
Problematic Internet Use→ Loneliness	0.471	0.013	22.267	< 0.001	Be in favor of
Perceived Social Support → Family communication	0.501	0.013	24.609	< 0.001	Be in favor of
Perceived Social Support → Loneliness	− 0.128	0.010	− 5.572	< 0.001	Be in favor of
Family communication → Loneliness	− 0.122	0.016	− 5.356	< 0.001	Be in favor of

Figure 2 Path coefficients of structural equation modeling.

Notes: ***P<0.001.

Table 7 Intermediate Path Relationship Test Results

Trails	Standardization Path Factor	Standard Error	95% Confidence Interval
			Lower Limit	Limit
Problematic Internet Use → Perceived Social Support → Loneliness	0.0067	0.0022	0.0032	0.0116
Problematic Internet Use → Family Communication → Loneliness	0.0128	0.0028	0.0077	0.0187
Problematic Internet Use → Perceived Social Support → Family Communication → Loneliness	0.0039	0.0012	0.0019	0.0063