Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Nursing Open logoLink to Nursing Open
. 2026 Mar 29;13(4):e70515. doi: 10.1002/nop2.70515

Exploring the Role of Self‐Compassion in the Relationship Between Psychological Resilience and Nomophobia Among Nursing Students

Nehir Yasan‐Ak 1,✉, Kerime Bademli 2
PMCID: PMC13140748  PMID: 41906376

ABSTRACT

Aim

Self‐compassion and psychological resilience are pivotal in navigating the complexities of digital age stressors, notably nomophobia—fear of being without one's mobile phone. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association among psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia. Moreover, the study employed structural equation modelling (SEM) to investigate the mediating effect of self‐compassion in the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia among nursing students in Türkiye.

Design

A cross‐sectional design was employed.

Methods

We collected data from 387 nursing students through an online survey. Personal Information Form, Nomophobia Questionnaire, Self‐compassion Scale and the Brief Psychological Resilience Scale were employed to collect the data.

Results

The results indicated medium levels of nomophobia, psychological resilience and self‐compassion. Gender analysis showed higher levels of nomophobia in females, while males reported greater self‐compassion and psychological resilience. The results of the correlation analyses indicated that there was a positive correlation between psychological resilience and self‐compassion, and a negative correlation between both of these variables and nomophobia. Path analysis validated the hypotheses, including self‐compassion's full mediating effect between resilience and nomophobia. The SEM's fit indices confirmed the model's adequacy.

Public Contribution

Our research underscores the importance of self‐compassion as a mediator in the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia. It suggests that enhancing self‐compassion could be crucial for reducing nomophobia levels, offering a new direction for interventions aimed at improving the mental well‐being of nursing students.

Keywords: full mediating role, nomophobia, nursing, psychological resilience, self‐compassion, structural equational model

1. Introduction

In today's digital age, advances in information and communication technologies have significantly shaped the lives of individuals and communities. Among these technologies, smartphones have become indispensable tools for nearly everyone (Levin and Mamlok 2021). However, excessive smartphone use has been linked to problems such as social media addiction, nomophobia and problematic internet use, which negatively affect individuals' psychological, social, academic and professional lives (Choi and Lee 2015). Nomophobia is defined as the fear or anxiety experienced when individuals are without their mobile phones or when their devices become unusable (Yildirim et al. 2016). This condition reflects the stress and unease many people feel when separated from their mobile devices.

Emerging evidence suggests that certain psychological resources may buffer against nomophobia. For example, individuals with higher levels of self‐compassion—the tendency to treat oneself with kindness in the face of difficulties—may experience lower anxiety when separated from their devices (Aktaş Terzioğlu et al. 2023). Self‐compassion is also theorised to strengthen resilience, enabling individuals to cope more effectively with stressful situations, which may in turn reduce nomophobia.

Nursing students represent a group of particular interest. Like many others in contemporary society, they rely heavily on smartphones for communication, information access and daily activities. However, this dependence, coupled with the anxiety of being without their devices, may adversely affect their mental well‐being and professional functioning (Ramjan et al. 2021). While prior studies have documented the prevalence of nomophobia among nursing students (Ayar et al. 2018), few have examined protective factors such as self‐compassion and resilience within an integrated framework. Addressing this gap, the present study aims to clarify the roles of self‐compassion and resilience in relation to nomophobia among nursing students, thereby advancing understanding of potential protective mechanisms. Few studies have examined protective factors such as self‐compassion and resilience within an integrated framework. However, a growing body of robust evidence underscores the importance of these constructs. For instance, a meta‐analysis across 51 studies (N = 57 effect sizes) found a moderate to strong negative association between self‐compassion and psychological distress (r = −0.516), highlighting its protective role in various populations (Baxter and Sirois 2025). Moreover, systematic interventions aimed at enhancing self‐compassion consistently reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress (Han and Kim 2023).

Research has shown that individuals with higher levels of psychological resilience are less prone to experiencing nomophobia (Arpaci and Gundogan 2022). Resilience, defined as the ability to sustain or restore psychological well‐being in challenging situations, is considered a central protective factor against stress‐related disorders and maladaptive behaviours. Meta‐analytic findings also confirm that resilience mitigates the negative effects of addictions and supports adaptive coping with adversity (Sisto et al. 2019). Consistent with this, a negative association has been identified between psychological resilience and smartphone addiction (Durak 2019), further supporting its potential protective role in relation to nomophobia.

The literature also highlights the role of self‐compassion as a crucial component of psychological well‐being (Neff 2011). A meta‐analysis demonstrated that self‐compassion is strongly associated with lower levels of psychological distress and greater emotional regulation, indicating its buffering role against technology‐related stressors (Ferrari et al. 2019). By fostering self‐compassion, nursing students may better cope with stressors and challenges related to their mobile phone use (Uniyal and Shahnawaz 2022). Previous studies further suggest that individuals with higher levels of resilience are more likely to exhibit self‐compassion (Kotera et al. 2021; Fong and Loi 2016). In turn, self‐compassion enables students to respond to distress and anxiety related to mobile phone separation with kindness and emotional balance (Hodes et al. 2022), which may reduce the intensity of nomophobia (Arpaci and Gundogan 2022).

Taken together, these findings support a theoretical model in which self‐compassion mediates the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia. Specifically, resilience strengthens self‐compassion, which enhances adaptive coping strategies and reduces maladaptive anxiety associated with smartphone unavailability. Drawing on Neff's (2003a) model of self‐compassion and resilience frameworks (Sisto et al. 2019), the present study tests this integrated model (see Figure 1), hypothesising that resilience indirectly reduces nomophobia through the protective mechanism of self‐compassion.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Research model.

1.1. The Purpose of the Study

The current study had two main objectives: (a) to explore the relationship between psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia, and (b) to assess the mediating role of self‐compassion in the connection between psychological resilience and nomophobia. Specifically, the study proposed the following four hypotheses:

Psychological resilience is significantly related to nomophobia.

Psychological resilience is significantly related to self‐compassion.

Self‐compassion is significantly related to nomophobia.

Self‐compassion has a mediating role between psychological resilience and nomophobia.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Design

The present study utilised a cross‐sectional design and applied structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine the associations between psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia. Additionally, the research explores the role of self‐compassion in mediating the connection between psychological resilience and nomophobia. A detailed depiction of the research model is provided in Figure 1.

2.2. Data Collection Procedure

We gathered data between April and December 2023, focusing on nursing students of a public university in Türkiye. Convenience sampling was employed, which may affect the generalisability of the results (Creswell 2012).

Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Research and Ethics Committee of Akdeniz University on February 14, 2023 (Approval No. 579074). The questionnaire for the study was shared using Google Forms, beginning with an informed consent form. This form explicitly informed nursing students that their involvement was voluntary and assured them that their answers would remain confidential.

This form clarified that their decision to participate would have no impact on their future academic pursuits or achievements. Access to the questionnaire was granted only after the students acknowledged and accepted the terms outlined in the consent form on this initial page. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any point during the completion of the online survey. After providing their consent, they were directed to complete the survey. To ensure high‐quality data, the survey platform was configured to accept only fully completed responses, with each participant restricted to a single submission. Of the 404 questionnaires retrieved, 17 were excluded due to the participants' lack of consent, leaving 387 participants for analysis.

2.3. Participants

The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Of the 387 undergraduate students, 302 (78%) were female and 85 (22%) were male. The mean age was 20.61 ± 2.43, ages spanning from 17 to 40. Study year distribution was as follows: freshmen at 35.4%, sophomores at 23%, juniors at 21.4% and seniors and others (those taking courses across different grade levels) at 20.2%.

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics (N = 387).

Variable f %
Gender
Male 85 22.0
Female 302 78.0
Study year
Freshman 137 35.4
Sophomore 89 23.0
Junior 83 21.4
Senior & others 78 20.2
M SD Min Max
Age 20.61 2.43 17.0 40.0
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: f, frequency.

Participants' internet usage characteristics were examined through two variables: daily internet use and internet usage patterns. Daily internet use refers to the overall time students spent online, whereas internet usage patterns categorise this time into academic, social and recreational purposes. As shown in Table 2, social internet use averaged 3.196 ± 2.199 h, recreational use 1.865 ± 1.900 h and academic use 1.999 ± 1.768 h. Overall, students reported an average of 6.035 ± 3.159 h of daily internet use.

TABLE 2.

Internet usage characteristics (N = 387).

Variable M SD Min Max
Daily internet use 6.035 3.159 0.0 24.0
Internet use patterns
Academic internet usage 1.999 1.768 0.0 12.0
Social internet usage 3.196 2.199 0.0 18.0
Recreational internet usage 1.865 1.900 0.0 18.0
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: M, mean; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; SD, standard deviation.

2.4. Data Collection Instruments

2.4.1. Personal Information Form

This form encompassed eight questions about the participants' characteristics, such as gender, age, GPA and study year in the programme. Additionally, the study used the Internet Use Pattern (IUP) developed by Caner‐Yıldırım and Yıldırım (2022) to evaluate different dimensions of Internet usage among the participants. The IUP involved assessing the duration of daily Internet usage and categorising it into three types: academic Internet use, social Internet use (including platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and WhatsApp) and recreational Internet use (such as watching Netflix and playing online games).

2.4.2. Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP‐Q)

Yildirim and Correia (2015) originally developed the NMP‐Q questionnaire to assess individuals' level of nomophobia, which consisted of four factors with 20 items. The scale used a 7‐point Likert Scale, with options ranging from 1 for ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 for ‘strongly agree’. The scores on this scale could range from 20 to 140, with higher scores indicating a greater level of nomophobia. The scale was translated into Turkish by Yildirim et al. (2016). The overall internal consistency of the Turkish version of the NMP‐Q is α = 0.92, with subscales varying from α = 0.74 to 0.94. In this study, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to explore the structural validity of the scale with the collected data. The results showed an acceptable fit (CMIN/DF = 2.682, GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.066). Additionally, the internal consistency coefficients for the scale ranged from α = 0.79 to 0.92, with a total scale α of 0.92.

2.4.3. Self‐Compassion Scale‐Short Form (SCS‐SF)

The Self‐Compassion Scale Short Form (SCS‐SF), developed from the original Self‐Compassion Scale by Neff (2003b) and further abbreviated by Raes et al. (2011), comprises a single factor with 11 items. This shortened version was adapted for the Turkish context by Yıldırım and Sarı (2018). The SCS‐SF scale utilised a 5‐point Likert‐type scale; responses range from 1 (‘almost never’) to 5 (‘almost always’). Items 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are scored in reverse. The scoring range of the scale extends from a minimum of 11 to a maximum of 55 points. Higher total scores on the scale indicate a higher level of self‐compassion. Cronbach's alpha value of the SCS‐SF scale was reported to be 0.75, exhibiting good reliability. In this study, CFA was performed to assess the scale's fit with the collected data, revealing a satisfactory alignment (CMIN/DF = 1.491, GFI = 0.992, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.036). Moreover, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.85 suggests that the scale has a high level of reliability.

2.4.4. Brief Psychological Resilience Scale (B‐PRS)

Smith et al. (2008) developed the B‐PRS to assess psychological resilience, and it was adapted for the Turkish context by Doğan (2015). A 5‐point Likert type was utilised ranging from 1 (‘not suitable at all’) to 5 (‘completely suitable’). It comprises six items with a single dimension. Items 2, 4 and 6 are reversely scored. Higher total scores on the scale indicate greater levels of psychological resilience, with possible scores ranging from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 30. The reliability of the Turkish adaptation was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.83. In this study, CFA was conducted to validate the scale's structure with the collected data, yielding a satisfactory model fit (CMIN/DF = 3.438, GFI = 0.940, CFI = 0.920, RMSEA = 0.079). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated at 0.85, indicating robust reliability.

2.5. Data Analysis

We used SPSS 28.0 for descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and independent t‐tests. Additionally, we utilised AMOS 20.0 to perform CFA and SEM. Before analysis, we ensured the following assumptions were met: missing data, appropriate sample size, absence of outliers and univariate and multivariate normality. The design of the electronic questionnaire guaranteed no missing data by requiring the completion of all fields before submission. Furthermore, the data were examined for outliers. Despite identifying a few cases, the researcher opted not to eliminate them from the dataset, as they may still be a valid part of the sample. This approach is supported by research from Pallant (2013) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), which suggests that such occurrences can be expected in studies with large sample sizes.

The sample size was set at a minimum of 370 to adhere to the guideline of having ten times the number of survey items, which numbered 37 in this instance (Kline 2011) and was satisfactorily achieved with 387 participants. For SEM, tests for univariate normality showed skewness and kurtosis values within the ±1.5 threshold (Tabachnick and Fidell 2013), indicating normal distribution. Skewness and kurtosis values for the distribution scores from the overall scales were 0.140 to 0.263 for psychological resilience, −0.004 to 0.107 for self‐compassion and −0.420 to −0.197 for nomophobia. Multivariate normality was confirmed by a multivariate kurtosis critical ratio under 10 (Kline 2011), justifying maximum likelihood selection as the estimation method.

The measurement model's fit was evaluated using several indices: a CMIN/df ratio under 3 for a good fit and under 5 for an acceptable fit (Kline 2011); an RMSEA value of 0.05 for an excellent fit, with values between 0.05 and 0.08 seen as good and acceptable (Cudeck and Browne 1983); and GFI, TLI and CFI values should be at least 0.90 for acceptability, with values of 0.95 and above indicating a perfect fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). The model encompassing psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia variables demonstrated a CMIN/df = 1.886, RMSEA = 0.048, GFI = 0.993, TLI = 0.975 and CFI = 0.987, indicating an acceptable fit.

For independent t‐tests, no violations were detected for normality, although some adjustments were made due to some violations of the homogeneity of variance assumption. The degree of freedom was corrected, and results were reported based on unequal variances.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Gender Difference

The presented results in Table 3 illustrate the mean, standard deviation and inter‐correlations of all variables examined in the study. Psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia level of the participants were at a medium level. According to the correlation strength categorisation by Dancey and Reidy (2011)—weak (r = 0.1–0.3), moderate (r = 0.4–0.6), strong (r = 0.7–0.9) and perfect (r = 1.0)—a medium level and positive correlations were observed between psychological resilience and self‐compassion. Conversely, both psychological resilience and self‐compassion exhibited a negative and low‐level relationship with nomophobia.

TABLE 3.

Means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables.

Variable M SD Range 1 2 3
PR (1) 18.51 4.70 6–30 1 — —
SCS (2) 33.26 6.49 11–55 0.60** 1 —
NMP (3) 88.02 21.00 20–140 −0.23** −0.27** 1
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NMP, nomophobia; PR, psychological resilience; SCS, self‐compassion scale.

**

p < 0.01.

The study found that there were significant gender differences in nomophobia, self‐compassion and psychological resilience. The findings revealed that females had higher scores than males in nomophobia (t[385] = 2.963, p < 0.01). On the other hand, males had higher scores than females in psychological resilience (t[118.59] = −5.386, p < 0.01) and self‐compassion (t[385] = −4.767, p < 0.01), as shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4.

Independent t‐test results regarding gender difference.

Variable t value/p Female/Male
PR t[118.59] = −5.386/p < 0.01 Male > female
SCS t[385] = −4.767/p < 0.01 Male > female
NMP t[385] = 2.963/p < 0.01 Female > male
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NMP, nomophobia; PR, psychological resilience; SCS, self‐compassion scale.

3.2. Tests of H1, H2 and H3: Path Analysis

At first, the model depicted in Figure 2 set out to explore the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia, which was the H1 hypothesis of the study. The results revealed that psychological resilience significantly predicts nomophobia (β = −0.23, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.05), supporting and thus accepting the H1 hypothesis. This finding indicates that higher levels of psychological resilience are associated with lower levels of nomophobia.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Path coefficient between psychological resilience and nomophobia.

The results presented in Figure 3 indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between psychological resilience and self‐compassion (β = 0.60, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.36). Additionally, self‐compassion had a significant negative effect on nomophobia (β = −0.31, p < 0.001). These findings provided support for both the H2 and H3 hypotheses. The two variables used in the study were found to explain 10% of the variance in nomophobia (R 2 = 0.10). According to Awang (2015), this value is considered acceptable as it exceeds the 10% threshold.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Mediating effect.

3.3. Test of H4: Mediating Effect

We constructed a model, as depicted in Figure 3, to explore the mediating role of self‐compassion on the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia. The results showed an acceptable data‐model fit (CMIN/DF = 1.434, GFI = 0.998, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.034). A bootstrap sample of 2000 was used to assess the mediating effect. The 95% confidence intervals for the direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 5. Self‐compassion had a significant negative effect on nomophobia (β = −0.274, p < 0.001). The direct effect of psychological resilience on nomophobia was devised as non‐significant (β = −0.069, p = 269 > 0.05) when the self‐compassion mediator variable was included in the model. The indirect effect of psychological resilience on nomophobia via self‐compassion is significant (β = −0.162, CI [−0.239, −0.092], p < 0.01). The results of the study provided support for H4, indicating that self‐compassion fully mediated the effect of psychological resilience on nomophobia, rather than partially. The research model in Figure 1 was adjusted to better fit the data, resulting in an updated model (Figure 3) that shows self‐compassion plays a mediator role in the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia. The updated model excludes any direct path from psychological resilience to nomophobia, emphasising the full mediation effect.

TABLE 5.

Direct and indirect effects of the latest model.

Model pathways Beta—estimated effects 95% CI Lower bonds 95% CI Upper bonds p Results
Direct
PR → NMP −0.069 −0.188 0.050 0.269 Non‐significant
SCS → NMP −0.274 −0.389 −0.155 0.001 Significant
SCS → PR 0.591 0.513 0.659 0.001 Significant
Indirect
PR → SCS → NMP −0.162 −0.239 −0.092 0.001 Significant
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NMP, nomophobia; PR, psychological resilience; SCS, self‐compassion scale.

4. Discussion

In the present research, we aimed to explore the correlation between psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia among undergraduate nursing students. One of the most significant findings of this study is the identification of self‐compassion as a full mediator in the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia. This indicates that resilience does not directly reduce nomophobia but instead operates through the enhancement of self‐compassion. Theoretically, this supports an integrated model grounded in Neff's (2003b) conceptualisation of self‐compassion as a protective emotional resource and broader resilience frameworks (Sisto et al. 2019). According to Neff, self‐compassion promotes adaptive emotion regulation and reduces the likelihood of maladaptive coping mechanisms, such as excessive smartphone use or emotional avoidance (Kardefelt‐Winther 2014). Moreover, resilience research suggests that resilient individuals cultivate positive coping and recovery mechanisms (Connor and Davidson 2003; Rutter 2012), which may translate into higher levels of self‐compassion. Simultaneously, resilience—characterised by emotional strength, flexibility and recovery—is associated with the development of self‐compassion (Eryılmaz et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2025), creating a cascade of protective psychological effects. By situating self‐compassion as a mediator, this study proposes that resilient individuals are more likely to cultivate self‐compassion, which in turn buffers against nomophobia. This mediating pathway is visually represented in the conceptual model (see Figure 1) and highlights a novel psychological mechanism that links inner emotional resources to reduced smartphone‐related anxiety.

This study revealed that nursing students exhibit moderate levels of nomophobia, psychological resilience and self‐compassion. The findings on moderate nomophobia levels are consistent with Tuna et al. (2023) but diverge from studies by Aguilera‐Manrique et al. (2018) and Gutiérrez‐Puertas et al. (2019), which reported high levels of nomophobia among nursing students. A recent multicentre study in Egypt reported that 40.3% of nursing students exhibited severe nomophobia, significantly linked to impulsive sensation‐seeking traits (El‐Ashry et al. 2024). Variables such as year of study, age and daily smartphone use predicted nomophobia, explaining 27.5% of its variance. These findings highlight the role of personality and behavioural factors and underscore the need to address emotional regulation and digital habits in interventions targeting nursing students. When interpreting the variations in nomophobia, resilience and self‐compassion across studies, both cultural and methodological factors should be considered in greater depth. Culturally, norms related to gender roles, social connectedness and technology use differ across societies. For instance, research indicates that in collectivist cultures, such as those in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions, mobile phones are strongly tied to maintaining interpersonal relationships and family bonds, which can intensify nomophobia compared to more individualistic cultures where independence is emphasised (Billieux et al. 2015). Methodologically, discrepancies in measurement tools also play a role. For example, some studies applied the Nomophobia Questionnaire (Yildirim and Correia 2015), while others used adapted or shortened scales with differing psychometric properties, potentially contributing to variability in reported nomophobia levels. These cultural and methodological nuances highlight the necessity of cautious interpretation and underscore the importance of designing future cross‐cultural and methodologically rigorous studies. This discrepancy prompts a consideration of these studies' varied methodologies and cultural contexts, suggesting that factors such as geographical location and social norms might influence nomophobia levels. The current study's observed moderate levels of self‐compassion and resilience align with Lancaster et al. (2023). This consistency in self‐compassion levels is reflected across various cultures (Yüksel Kaçan 2023; Shahidi‐Delshad et al. 2023; Alquwez et al. 2021; Kotera et al. 2021; Eraydın and Karagözoğlu 2017; Hiçdurmaz and Aydin 2017), although there were a few studies in the literature (Brown et al. 2003; Kukulu et al. 2013; Lundberg 2008) indicating low levels of self‐confidence among nursing students. This universality suggests that despite cultural differences, the experiences shaping self‐compassion among nursing students may share commonalities. Furthermore, a systematic review by Li and Hasson (2020) analysing 12 papers found moderate resilience among nursing students. Conversely, Fernández‐Martínez et al. (2021) observed high resilience levels in nursing students, while Kim (2019) identified low resilience among them. These variances highlight the challenges in measuring psychological constructs and the potential impact of different study designs, sample sizes and assessment tools. The disparities necessitate further investigation into the factors contributing to differences in nomophobia, resilience and self‐compassion among nursing students, which is crucial for developing targeted interventions to enhance the well‐being of nursing students globally.

This study revealed that nursing students exhibit moderate levels of nomophobia, psychological resilience and self‐compassion. The findings on moderate nomophobia levels are consistent with Tuna et al. (2023) but diverge from studies by Aguilera‐Manrique et al. (2018) and Gutiérrez‐Puertas et al. (2019), which reported high levels of nomophobia among nursing students. A recent multicentre study in Egypt reported that 40.3% of nursing students exhibited severe nomophobia, significantly linked to impulsive sensation‐seeking traits (El‐Ashry et al. 2024). Variables such as year of study, age and daily smartphone use predicted nomophobia, explaining 27.5% of its variance. These findings highlight the role of personality and behavioural factors and underscore the need to address emotional regulation and digital habits in interventions targeting nursing students. When interpreting the variations in nomophobia, resilience and self‐compassion across studies, both cultural and methodological factors should be considered in greater depth. Culturally, norms related to gender roles, social connectedness and technology use differ across societies. For instance, research indicates that in collectivist cultures, such as those in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions, mobile phones are strongly tied to maintaining interpersonal relationships and family bonds, which can intensify nomophobia compared to more individualistic cultures where independence is emphasised (Billieux et al. 2015). Methodologically, discrepancies in measurement tools also play a role. For example, some studies applied the Nomophobia Questionnaire (Yildirim and Correia 2015), while others used adapted or shortened scales with differing psychometric properties, potentially contributing to variability in reported nomophobia levels. These cultural and methodological nuances highlight the necessity of cautious interpretation and underscore the importance of designing future cross‐cultural and methodologically rigorous studies. This discrepancy prompts a consideration of these studies' varied methodologies and cultural contexts, suggesting that factors such as geographical location and social norms might influence nomophobia levels. The current study's observed moderate levels of self‐compassion and resilience align with Lancaster et al. (2023). This consistency in self‐compassion levels is reflected across various cultures (Yüksel Kaçan 2023; Shahidi‐Delshad et al. 2023; Alquwez et al. 2021; Kotera et al. 2021; Eraydın and Karagözoğlu 2017; Hiçdurmaz and Aydin 2017), although there were a few studies in the literature (Brown et al. 2003; Kukulu et al. 2013; Lundberg 2008) indicating low levels of self‐confidence among nursing students. This universality suggests that despite cultural differences, the experiences shaping self‐compassion among nursing students may share commonalities. Furthermore, a systematic review by Li and Hasson (2020) analysing 12 papers found moderate resilience among nursing students. Conversely, Fernández‐Martínez et al. (2021) observed high resilience levels in nursing students, while Kim (2019) identified low resilience among them. These variances highlight the challenges in measuring psychological constructs and the potential impact of different study designs, sample sizes and assessment tools. The disparities necessitate further investigation into the factors contributing to differences in nomophobia, resilience and self‐compassion among nursing students, which is crucial for developing targeted interventions to enhance the well‐being of nursing students globally.

Based on the gender difference analysis results, there was a notable difference in nomophobia levels between male and female nursing students, with female students reporting higher levels of nomophobia. This finding aligns with findings from previous research (Yildirim et al. 2016), which also found females to have higher levels of nomophobia than males. However, other studies report no significant gender difference in nomophobia level (Márquez‐Hernández et al. 2020; Argumosa‐Villar et al. 2017). Furthermore, our study found that male students' psychological resilience and self‐compassion were higher than those of female ones. This observation supports prior studies indicating that males may experience higher levels of psychological resilience than females (Fernández‐Martínez et al. 2021; Tur et al. 2020). Similarly, the findings on self‐compassion were consistent with the literature; Yarnell et al. (2015) conducted a meta‐analysis involving 88 studies and discovered that males exhibit slightly higher levels of self‐compassion than females. Cultural norms surrounding gender roles may influence these differences.

The present research found a notable negative correlation between self‐compassion and nomophobia. According to this, as self‐compassion decreased, so the tendency to nomophobia increased. Similar to this study, Aktaş Terzioğlu et al. (2023) investigated the relationship between nomophobia and self‐compassion among adolescents and found a negative association between self‐compassion and nomophobia. Similarly, another study also states that there is a healthily negative relationship between high levels of self‐compassion, psychological distress and unhealthy smartphone attachment. That means those with high self‐compassion have lower levels of problematic smartphone use (Hodes et al. 2022). Therefore, this study allows us to predict the expected result that self‐compassion is also negatively related to nomophobia. Our study supports the research results in the existing literature.

Numerous studies have explored the impact of psychological resilience on various mental health outcomes. Resilient individuals often exhibit higher levels of well‐being and cope more effectively with stressors (Connor and Davidson 2003; Rutter 2012). In contrast, individuals with lower psychological resilience may be more prone to maladaptive coping mechanisms, including problematic smartphone use (Kardefelt‐Winther 2014). Supporting this perspective, a recent study by Ghoneam et al. (2025) found that resilience was negatively associated with burnout and acted as a partial mediator between stress and burnout among critical care nursing students. Their findings underscore the protective role of resilience, particularly in buffering the impact of stress on personal and client‐related burnout dimensions and emphasise the importance of integrating resilience‐building strategies into educational and clinical training settings. In this study, we investigated a notable negative correlation between psychological resilience and the fear of being without a mobile phone, called nomophobia. Psychological resilience is essential for maintaining mental well‐being and navigating life's challenges (Santl et al. 2022). This entails the capacity to recover from challenges, manage stress effectively and uphold a positive perspective on life. However, research has shown that nomophobia can have a negative impact on psychological resilience. A study conducted by Arpaci and Gundogan (2022) found that nomophobia was negatively associated with emotional skills and competencies, indicating that individuals with poorer emotional regulation may be more susceptible to nomophobia. This negative correlation between nomophobia and psychological resilience highlights the importance of addressing smartphone dependence and promoting healthy coping mechanisms. Recent studies have found that nomophobia is positively correlated with neuroticism, attachment anxiety and loneliness, further highlighting the negative impact of excessive mobile phone use on mental health (Notara et al. 2021). Nomophobia, as a manifestation of problematic smartphone use, has been linked to increased anxiety, depression and decreased overall psychological well‐being (Yildirim and Correia 2015). The negative relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia may be attributed to the way resilient individuals effectively navigate stressors without relying excessively on digital devices. The negative correlation between psychological resilience and nomophobia suggests that individuals with higher resilience levels may be better equipped to manage the anxieties associated with smartphone dependency. Resilient individuals may possess strong coping mechanisms and adaptability, reducing their susceptibility to the detrimental effects of nomophobia. However, this study clarifies that the effect of resilience is not direct, but rather exerts its influence via self‐compassion, which reinforces the theoretical model proposed earlier.

This study's most notable contribution is the empirical support for a theoretically grounded model in which self‐compassion fully mediates the relationship between psychological resilience and nomophobia behaviour. This suggests that the impact of psychological resilience on nomophobia is entirely channelled through the lens of self‐compassion. Our results indicate that higher levels of psychological resilience contribute to increased self‐compassion, subsequently leading to lower levels of nomophobia. This finding carries profound implications for interventions aiming to mitigate nomophobia among nursing students. Rather than focusing solely on bolstering psychological resilience, interventions should explicitly incorporate strategies to enhance self‐compassion. Programmes that cultivate self‐compassion skills, such as mindfulness‐based interventions or self‐reflection exercises, may prove effective in reducing nomophobia levels in this demographic.

5. Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, this study unravels the intricate relationships between psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia behaviour among nursing students. The identification of self‐compassion as a full mediator underscores the need for holistic interventions to address the multifaceted challenges posed by nomophobia. Beyond theoretical contributions, these findings hold practical implications. For nurse educators, embedding self‐compassion practices—such as mindfulness‐based activities and reflective exercises—into the nursing curriculum may enhance students' resilience and reduce maladaptive smartphone dependency. Curriculum developers and academic advisors can consider integrating structured programmes that foster both resilience and self‐compassion as part of professional formation. Furthermore, student counsellors and mental health professionals working within academic settings may draw on these findings to design preventive and supportive initiatives that address nomophobia as part of broader digital well‐being strategies. Collectively, such targeted efforts can contribute to promoting the psychological well‐being and academic success of nursing students in an increasingly digitalised world.

Additionally, we recommend developing pilot intervention programmes aimed at improving self‐compassion and psychological resilience among nursing students. Such programmes could include workshops, mindfulness sessions or guided reflective exercises and should be evaluated for their effectiveness in reducing nomophobia. These targeted pilot interventions would provide practical evidence for scalable strategies to promote psychological well‐being and academic success in an increasingly digitalised educational environment.

6. Limitations and Further Studies

While this study contributes valuable insights, it has several limitations. First, the cross‐sectional design precludes definitive conclusions about causality. Future longitudinal studies could provide a more nuanced understanding of the temporal dynamics between psychological resilience, self‐compassion and nomophobia. Second, although this research focused on the mediating role of self‐compassion, exploring additional moderating and mediating variables—such as social support, coping strategies or specific aspects of digital device usage—may further enrich our understanding of the nomophobia phenomenon. Third, the findings are not fully generalisable, as the study relied on convenience sampling of nursing students from a single public university in Türkiye. Moreover, although the sample included students from all class levels, stratified sampling was not employed. This may limit representativeness across subgroups, and future research should consider stratified sampling to enhance generalisability and reduce potential sample bias. Finally, the overrepresentation of female students compared to male students (78.0% vs. 22.0%) may have restricted the ability to detect meaningful gender differences. However, this distribution reflects the actual demographic structure of nursing students at the relevant university where the data were collected. According to the The Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Undergraduate Atlas report, female students comprised 76.6% in 2023 and 71.6% in 2024, while male students accounted for 23.4% and 28.4%, respectively. Thus, although the proportion of female students in our sample is slightly higher, it is broadly consistent with the gender distribution of nursing students at the university level. In addition, reliance on self‐report scales may have introduced social desirability bias (Krumpal 2013) and the post‐pandemic context may also have influenced students' smartphone use behaviours. These factors should be considered when interpreting the findings, and future research may benefit from incorporating multiple methods and diverse contexts to strengthen validity and generalisability.

Author Contributions

N.Y.A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Resources, Funding acquisition. K.B.: Conceptualization, Validation, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Visualization, Supervision, Resources, Funding acquisition.

Funding

Open access funding may be provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).

Ethics Statement

The Social and Humanity Sciences Ethical Committee at Akdeniz University granted approval for the study on February 14, 2023, under the reference number 579074. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the nursing students who contributed to this study.

Data Availability Statement

Research data are not shared.

References

  1. Aguilera‐Manrique, G. , Márquez‐Hernández V. V., Alcaraz‐Córdoba T., Granados‐Gámez G., Gutiérrez‐Puertas V., and Gutiérrez‐Puertas L.. 2018. “The Relationship Between Nomophobia and the Distraction Associated With Smartphone Use Among Nursing Students in Their Clinical Practicum.” PLoS One 13, no. 8: e0202953. 10.1371/journal.pone.0202953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aktaş Terzioğlu, M. , Toker Uğurlu T., Aksoy C., and Gümüş Ü.. 2023. “An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Selfcompassion and Nomophobia and Comorbid Mental Disorders in Adolescents.” Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 10, no. 1: 75–85. 10.5152/ADDICTA.2023.22019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alquwez, N. , Cruz J. P., Al Thobaity A., et al. 2021. “Self‐Compassion Influences the Caring Behaviour and Compassion Competence Among Saudi Nursing Students: A Multi‐University Study.” Nursing Open 8, no. 5: 2732–2742. 10.1002/nop2.848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Argumosa‐Villar, L. , Boada‐Grau J., and Vigil‐Colet A.. 2017. “Exploratory Investigation of Theoretical Predictors of Nomophobia Using the Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (MPIQ).” Journal of Adolescence 56, no. 1: 127–135. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arpaci, I. , and Gundogan S.. 2022. “Mediating Role of Psychological Resilience in the Relationship Between Mindfulness and Nomophobia.” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 50, no. 5: 782–790. 10.1080/03069885.2020.1856330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Awang, P. 2015. SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling. MPWS Rich Publication. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ayar, D. , Gerçeker G. Ö., Özdemir E. Z., and Bektas M.. 2018. “The Effect of Problematic Internet Use, Social Appearance Anxiety, and Social Media Use on Nursing Students' Nomophobia Levels.” CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing 36, no. 12: 589–595. 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baxter, R. , and Sirois F. M.. 2025. “Self‐Compassion and Psychological Distress in Chronic Illness: A Meta‐Analysis.” British Journal of Health Psychology 30, no. 1: e12761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Billieux, J. , Maurage P., Lopez‐Fernandez O., Kuss D. J., and Griffiths M. D.. 2015. “Can Disordered Mobile Phone Use Be Considered a Behavioral Addiction? An Update on Current Evidence and a Comprehensive Model for Future Research.” Current Addiction Reports 2, no. 2: 156–162. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, B. , O'Mara L., Hunsberger M., et al. 2003. “Professional Confidence in Baccalaureate Nursing Students.” Nurse Education in Practice 3: 163–170. 10.1016/S1471-5953(02)00111-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Caner‐Yıldırım, S. , and Yıldırım Z.. 2022. “Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version of Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale‐2 and the Relationship Between Internet Use Patterns and Problematic Internet Use.” International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 21: 1–23. 10.1007/s11469-022-00819-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi, J. , and Lee J. K.. 2015. “Investigating the Effects of News Sharing and Political Interest on Social Media Network Heterogeneity.” Computers in Human Behavior 44: 258–266. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Connor, K. M. , and Davidson J. R.. 2003. “Development of a New Resilience Scale: The Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC).” Depression and Anxiety 18, no. 2: 76–82. 10.1002/da.10113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Creswell, J. W. 2012. Education Research Planning Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cudeck, R. , and Browne M. W.. 1983. “Cross‐Validation of Covariance Structures.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 18, no. 2: 147–167. 10.1207/s15327906mbr1802_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dancey, C. P. , and Reidy J.. 2011. Statistics Without Maths for Psychology (5th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  17. Doğan, T. 2015. “Kısa psikolojik sağlamlık ölçeği'nin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Adaptation of the Brief Resilience Scale Into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study].” Journal of Happiness & Well‐Being 3, no. 1: 93–102. https://jhwbjournal.com/uploads/files/c6d5317a51c32cbf3b82c77b73eea1fd.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  18. Durak, H. Y. 2019. “Investigation of Nomophobia and Smartphone Addiction Predictors Among Adolescents in Turkey: Demographic Variables and Academic Performance.” Social Science Journal 56, no. 4: 492–517. 10.1016/j.soscij.2018.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. El‐Ashry, R. M. , Abdelnaby H. A., Elgzar W. T., and El Sayed H. A.. 2024. “Nomophobia and Impulsive Sensation Seeking Among Nursing Students: A Multicenter Cross‐Sectional Study.” BMC Nursing 23, no. 1: 49. 10.1186/s12912-023-01683-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eraydın, Ş. , and Karagözoğlu Ş.. 2017. “Investigation of Self‐Compassion, Self‐Confidence and Submissive Behaviors of Nursing Students Studying in Different Curriculums.” Nurse Education Today 54: 44–50. 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Eryılmaz, A. , Yıldırım‐Kurtuluş H., and Yıldırım M.. 2024. “A Cross‐Sectional and Longitudinal Study on the Mediation Effect of Positive and Negative Affects in the Relationship Between Self‐Compassion and Resilience in Early Adolescents.” Children and Youth Services Review 161: 107669. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107669. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fernández‐Martínez, E. , Martín‐Pérez I., Liébana‐Presa C., Martínez‐Fernández M. C., and López‐Alonso A. I.. 2021. “Fear of Death and Its Relationship to Resilience in Nursing Students: A Longitudinal Study.” Nurse Education in Practice 55: 103175. 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferrari, M. , Hunt C., Harrysunker A., Abbott M. J., Beath A. P., and Einstein D. A.. 2019. “Self‐Compassion Interventions and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Meta‐Analysis of RCTs.” Mindfulness 10, no. 8: 1455–1473. 10.1007/s12671-019-01134-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fong, M. , and Loi N. M.. 2016. “The Mediating Role of Self‐Compassion in Student Psychological Health.” Australian Psychologist 51, no. 6: 431–441. 10.1111/ap.12185. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ghoneam, M. A. , El‐Ashry A. M., Sabek E. M., and Seweida M. M.. 2025. “Influence of Clinical Practice Stressors on Critical Care Nursing Students' Burnout: Resilience as a Mediating Factor.” Teaching and Learning in Nursing 20: e1136–e1144. 10.1016/j.teln.2025.05.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gutiérrez‐Puertas, L. , Mârquez‐Hernândez V. V., Sâo‐Româo‐Preto L., Granados‐Gâmez G., Gutiérrez‐Puertas V., and Aguilera‐Manrique G.. 2019. “Comparative Study of Nomophobia Among Spanish and Portuguese Nursing Students.” Nurse Education in Practice 34: 79–84. 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Han, A. , and Kim T. H.. 2023. “Effects of Self‐Compassion Interventions on Reducing Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety, and Stress: A Meta‐Analysis.” Mindfulness: 1–29. Advance Online Publication. 10.1007/s12671-023-02148-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hiçdurmaz, D. , and Aydin A.. 2017. “The Relationship Between Nursing Students' Self‐Compassion and Multidimensional Perfectionism Levels and the Factors That Influence Them.” Journal of Psychiatric Nursing/Psikiyatri Hemsireleri Dernegi 8, no. 2. 10.14744/phd.2017.40469. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Higher Education Quality Council (YÖK) . 2024. Undergraduate Atlas: Gender Distribution of Placed Students (2023–2024). Accessed March 18, 2026. https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/2022/lisans.php?y=100710824. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hodes, L. N. , Oosthuizen J., Henry M., and Thomas K. G.. 2022. “Smartphones and Psychosocial Development: Self‐Compassion Mediates the Association Between Trait Anxiety and Smartphone Attachment in Digital Natives but Not Digital Immigrants.” Development Southern Africa 39, no. 4: 558–574. 10.1080/0376835X.2021.2003757. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hu, L. H. , and Bentler P. M.. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1: 1–15. 10.1080/10705519909540118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kardefelt‐Winther, D. 2014. “A Conceptual and Methodological Critique of Internet Addiction Research: Towards a Model of Compensatory Internet Use.” Computers in Human Behavior 31: 351–354. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, J. 2019. “Nursing Students' Relationships Among Resilience, Life Satisfaction, Psychological Well‐Being, and Attitude to Death.” Korean Journal of Medical Education 31, no. 3: 251–260. 10.3946/kjme.2019.135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kline, R. B. 2011. “Convergence of Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Modeling.” In The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, 562–589. SAGE Publications Ltd. 10.4135/9781446268261.n31. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kotera, Y. , Cockerill V., Chircop J., Kaluzeviciute G., and Dyson S.. 2021. “Predicting Self‐Compassion in UK Nursing Students: Relationships With Resilience, Engagement, Motivation, and Mental Wellbeing.” Nurse Education in Practice 51: 102989. 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.102989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Krumpal, I. 2013. “Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review.” Quality & Quantity 47, no. 4: 2025–2047. 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kukulu, K. , Korukcu O., Ozdemir Y., Bezci A., and Calik C.. 2013. “Self‐Confidence, Gender and Academic Achievement of Undergraduate Nursing Students.” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 20: 330–335. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01924.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lancaster, R. , Englund H., Anibas M., and Vande Berg C.. 2023. “Self‐Compassion and Resilience in a National Sample of Nursing Students Amid the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Nursing Education Perspectives 44, no. 1: 43–45. 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Levin, I. , and Mamlok D.. 2021. “Culture and Society in the Digital Age.” Information 12, no. 2: 68. 10.3390/info12020068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Li, Z.‐S. , and Hasson F.. 2020. “Resilience, Stress, and Psychological Well‐Being in Nursing Students: A Systematic Review.” Nurse Education Today 90: 104440. 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lundberg, K. M. 2008. “Promoting Self‐Confidence in Clinical Nursing Students.” Nurse Educator 33, no. 2: 86–89. 10.1097/01.NNE.0000299512.78270.d0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Márquez‐Hernández, V. V. , Gutiérrez‐Puertas L., Granados‐Gámez G., Gutiérrez‐Puertas V., and Aguilera‐Manrique G.. 2020. “Problematic Mobile Phone Use, Nomophobia, and Decision‐Making in Nursing Students.” Nurse Education in Practice 49: 102910. 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Neff, K. D. 2003a. “Self‐Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself.” Self and Identity 2, no. 2: 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  44. Neff, K. D. 2003b. “The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self‐ Compassion.” Self and Identity 2, no. 3: 223–250. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full‐record/WOS:000209508100004. [Google Scholar]
  45. Neff, K. D. 2011. “Self‐Compassion, Self‐Esteem, and Well‐Being.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5, no. 1: 1–12. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Notara, V. , Vagka E., Gnardellis C., and Lagiou A.. 2021. “The Emerging Phenomenon of Nomophobia in Young Adults: A Systematic Review Study.” Addiction and Health 13, no. 2: 120–136. 10.22122/ahj.v13i2.309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pallant, J. 2013. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows. McGraw‐Hill. [Google Scholar]
  48. Raes, F. , Pommier E., Neff K. D., and Van Gucht D.. 2011. “Construction and Factorial Validation of a Short Form of the Self‐Compassion Scale.” Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 18, no. 3: 250–255. 10.1002/cpp.702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ramjan, L. M. , Salamonson Y., Batt S., et al. 2021. “The Negative Impact of Smartphone Usage on Nursing Students: An Integrative Literature Review.” Nurse Education Today 102: 104909. 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rutter, M. 2012. “Resilience as a Dynamic Concept.” Development and Psychopathology 24, no. 2: 335–344. 10.1017/S0954579412000028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Santl, L. , Brajkovic L., and Kopilaš V.. 2022. “Relationship Between Nomophobia, Various Emotional Difficulties, and Distress Factors Among Students.” European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 12, no. 7: 716–730. https://www.mdpi.com/1712056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Shahidi‐Delshad, E. , Nobahar M., Raiesdana N., Yarahmadi S., and Saberian M.. 2023. “Academic Resilience, Moral Perfectionism, and Self‐Compassion Among Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Cross‐Sectional, Multi‐Center Study.” Journal of Professional Nursing 46: 39–44. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sisto, A. , Vicinanza F., Campanozzi L. L., Ricci G., Tartaglini D., and Tambone V.. 2019. “Towards a Transversal Definition of Psychological Resilience: A Literature Review.” Medicina 55, no. 11: 745. 10.3390/medicina55110745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Smith, B. W. , Dalen J., Wiggins K., Tooley E., Christopher P., and Jennifer Bernard J.. 2008. “The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back.” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15: 194–200. 10.1080/10705500802222972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tabachnick, B. G. , and Fidell L. S.. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tuna, R. , Alan H., Saritas M., and Bacaksiz F. E.. 2023. “Touch‐Operated World of Teenagers in the Distance Education Process: A Cross‐Sectional Study on Nomophobia, Netlessphobia and Fear of Missing Out in Nursing Students.” Nurse Education in Practice 71: 103728. 10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Tur, A. M. , Cuartero N., Gea‐Caballero V., and Juárez‐Vela R.. 2020. “Resilience Scale Psychometric Study: Adaptation to the Spanish Population in Nursing Students.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 12: 4602. 10.3390/ijerph17124602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Uniyal, R. , and Shahnawaz M. G.. 2022. “Wellbeing and Problematic Smartphone Use: Serial Mediation of Mindfulness and Self‐Compassion.” Psychological Reports 127, no. 4: 1705–1726. 10.1177/00332941221141311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, J. , Drossaert C. H., Knevel M., Chen L., Bohlmeijer E. T., and Schroevers M. J.. 2025. “The Mechanisms Underlying the Relationship Between Self‐Compassion and Psychological Outcomes in Adult Populations: A Systematic Review.” Stress and Health 41, no. 4: e70090. 10.1002/smi.70090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Yarnell, L. M. , Stafford R. E., Neff K. D., Reilly E. D., Knox M. C., and Mullarkey M.. 2015. “Meta‐Analysis of Gender Differences in Self‐Compassion.” Self and Identity 14, no. 5: 499–520. 10.1080/15298868.2015.1029966. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Yildirim, C. , and Correia A. P.. 2015. “Exploring the Dimensions of Nomophobia: Development and Validation of a Selfreported Questionnaire.” Computers in Human Behavior 49: 130–137. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Yildirim, C. , Sumuer E., Adnan M., and Yildirim S.. 2016. “A Growing Fear: Prevalence of Nomophobia Among Turkish College Students.” Information Development 32, no. 5: 1322–1331. 10.1177/0266666915599025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yıldırım, M. , and Sarı T.. 2018. “Öz‐Şefkat Ölçeği Kısa Formu'nun Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik Ve güvenirlik çalışması [Adaptation of the Short Form of Self‐Compassion Scale Into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study].” Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 18, no. 4: 2502–2517. 10.17240/aibuefd.2018.18.41844-452171. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Yüksel Kaçan, C. 2023. “Does the Nursing Students' Perceived Level of Compassion Correlate With Affect Their Perception of Spiritual Care?” Nurse Education Today 130: 105951. 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Research data are not shared.

Articles from Nursing Open are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES