. 2021 Mar 15;23(3):e18876. doi: 10.2196/18876

Table 3.

Adjusted indirect, direct, and total effects of the number of family instant message (IM) chat groups (N=1638) and use (N=1180) on family functioning and family well-being mediated by family communication using the Sobel test.

Variable		Number of family IM chat groups		Number of received IM from family chat groups/day		Number of sent IM in family chat groups/day		Frequency of family IM chat interaction^a
Family functioning
	Total effect, adjusted β^b (95% CI)		.33 (.13 to .54)^**		.34 (.05 to .63)^*		.45 (.12 to .78)^**		.23 (.06 to .40)^**
	Indirect effect (through mediator), adjusted β (95% CI)		.14 (.04 to .23)^**		.22 (.08 to .36)^**		.23 (.09 to .38)^**		.14 (.06 to .22)^***
	Direct effect (without mediator), adjusted β (95% CI)		.20 (–.01 to .40)		.12 (–.16 to .39)		.22 (–.09 to .52)		.09 (–.06 to .24)
	Proportion of total effect mediated (%)		40.4		64.9		51.8		59.6
Family well-being
	Total effect, adjusted β (95% CI)		.14 (.03 to .25)^*		.31 (.16 to .46)^***		.31 (.14 to .49)^***		.18 (.10 to .27)^***
	Indirect effect, adjusted β (95% CI)		.10 (.03 to .16)^**		.15 (.06 to .24)^***		.16 (.06 to .25)^***		.09 (.04 to .14)^***
	Direct effect, adjusted β (95% CI)		.04 (–.05 to .14)		.16 (.04 to .28)^**		.15 (.02 to .29)^*		.09 (.02 to .15)^**
	Proportion of total effect mediated (%)		68.6		48.4		50.6		51.0

^aComposite variable, frequency of family IM chat interaction (range 0-8), sum of the number of messages received from IM chat groups and number of messages sent in IM chat groups per day.

^bRegression model 2: adjusted for sex, age, education attainment, family income, marital status, and frequency of family face-to-face communication.

^*P<.05; ^**P<.01; ^***P<.001.