Table 6.
Mediator analysis of immersive tendency, childhood ADHD, POG, and PIU
Outcome | Detecting steps in mediation model | B | SE B | β | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
POG | Step 1 (path c) | ||||
Outcome: POG | |||||
Predictor: IT | 0.437 | 0.085 | 0.592*** | 0.351 | |
Step 2 (path a) | |||||
Outcome: childhood ADHD | |||||
Predictor: IT | 0.715 | 0.125 | 0.633*** | 0.401 | |
Step 3 (paths b and c’) | |||||
Outcome: POG | |||||
Mediator: childhood ADHD (path b) | 0.363 | 0.083 | 0.557*** | ||
Predictor: IT (path c’) | 0.177 | 0.094 | 0.24 | 0.537 | |
PIU (IAT) | Step 1 (path c) | ||||
Outcome: POG | |||||
Predictor: IT | 0.531 | 0.087 | 0.659*** | 0.434 | |
Step 2 (path a) | |||||
Outcome: childhood ADHD | |||||
Predictor: IT | 0.715 | 0.125 | 0.633*** | 0.401 | |
Step 3 (paths b and c’) | |||||
Outcome: POG | |||||
Mediator: childhood ADHD (path b) | 0.271 | 0.092 | 0.380** | ||
Predictor: IT (path c’) | 0.337 | 0.104 | 0.418** | 0.521 |
p<0.01,
p<0.001.
IT: immersive tendency, POG: problematic online gaming, PIU: problematic Internet use, IAT: Internet Addiction Test, ADHD: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder