See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322393997

A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction

between native and nonnative students at University of Sistan and
Baluchestan, Iran

Article  in  Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health · January 2017

DOI: 10.4103/ATMPH.ATMPH_498_17

CITATIONS READS

0 69

5 authors, including:

Arash Ziapour
Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehrn, Iran
60 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A study of health literacy components and their relationships with health-promoting behaviors in students at Kermanshah University of medical sciences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arash Ziapour on 20 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 November-December
2017
Volume
10 Issue
6
Spine 11 mm

Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health • Volume 10 • Issue 6 • November-December 2017 • Pages 1401-****
 A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

addiction between native and nonnative students at University of

Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran
Safoora Khushde, Malihe Farhangi1, Behzad Rigi Kouteh2, Farhad Kahrazei3, Arash Ziapour4
Department of Psychology, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, 1Department of Psychology, Islamic Azad University Zahedan Branch,
Zahedan, 2Ph.D Students in Clinical Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, School of Clinical Psychology, University Of Social
Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, 3Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, University of
Sistan & Baluchestan, Zahedan, 4Research Center for Environmental Determinants of Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences,
Kermanshah, Iran

ABSTRACT
Background: Due to dealing with stress caused by transition from adolescence to adulthood, attempting to
adapt themselves with various conditions, maintaining good academic performance, planning for the future,
and being away from home, students often encounter high levels of anxiety. Objective: The present study
aimed to compare native and nonnative students at University of Sistan and Baluchestan (Iran) considering
homesickness, depression, and Internet addition. Materials and Methods: The method of this study was
casual‑comparative. Among all postgraduate students at University of Sistan and Baluchestan (in the academic
year 2015‑2016), 204 native and nonnative students were selected using the convenience sampling method and
were asked to complete the Archer et al’s. Homesickness Questionnaire, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the
Young Internet Addiction Test. Results: The results indicated statistically significant differences between native
and nonnative students such that nonnative students’ scores on homesickness and subscales of attachment to
home and dissatisfaction with being at the university, Internet addiction and subscales of salience, neglecting
work, anticipation, and neglecting social life, and depression were all higher than those of native students.
Considering subscales of excessive use and lack of control, no statistically significant difference was found.
Conclusion: Given the obtained results, it can be concluded that nonnative students experienced higher levels
of homesickness, depression, and Internet addiction. Therefore, providing theoretical and practical guidance on
reducing homesickness, depression, and Internet addiction is highly suggested.

Key words: Depression, homesickness, internet addiction, native, nonnative students

Introduction places in which students can live, be relax, and benefit

University admission is one of the most important
stages of people’s educational life. Youth often
leave their hometown and move to another city or
province to continue their education. Most of these
nonnative students moved to other cities are forced
to live in dormitories. These dormitories, located in
the university campus or in the city, are considered as
Access this article online
Quick Response Code: Website:
www.atmph.org
from cultural and welfare facilities through applying
which the students’ mental health is assured.[1]
On the other hand, moving to the university
dormitories can be a very positive, new, and exciting
experience for many young people. However, for
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0
License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the
work non‑commercially, as long as the author is credited and the
new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com

DOI: Cite this article as: Khushde S, Farhangi M, Kouteh BR, Kahrazei F,
10.4103/ATMPH.ATMPH_498_17 Ziapour A. A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet
addiction between native and nonnative students at University of Sistan
and Baluchestan, Iran. Ann Trop Med Public Health 2017;10:1537-46.

Correspondence:
Dr. Behzad Rigi kouteh, Department of Clinical Psychology, The Faculty of Behavioral Science, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation
Sciences, Tehran, Iran. E‑mail: Behzadrigi1367@gmail.com

© 2018 Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 1537
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University
some nonnative students, this shift is difficult and
even unbearable.[2] In some cases, this relocation can
be stressful, since students have to leave their home,
family, and supportive sources. This stress, typically,
leads to homesickness and creates a strong desire to
return home. Although homesickness is a prevalent
phenomenon experienced by most students, some
students never experience it. This mostly occurs to
new students and this long‑lasting feeling can lead to
various issues.[3]
Homesickness is a phenomenon that is often caused
by relocation. Since, along with physical and mental
health problems, homesickness is usually associated
with issues associated with adapting to the new
environment, it brings many clinical concerns.[4]
Thurber and Walton defined homesickness as a distress
and functional impairment caused by a real or an
anticipated separation from home and attachment to
home and parents.[5] Signs of homesickness include
disorders such as depression, substance abuse,
and risky sexual behaviors.[6] When examining the
literature review, no similar studies carried out to
compare homesickness and other variables under study
among native and nonnative students were found.
However, in general, Fisher et al. conducted a study on
a sample of 101 college freshmen and demonstrated
that 60% of students experienced severe levels of
homesickness.[7] In another study, Longo reported the
mean scores of nonnative students on attachment
to home (X = 2.58) and dissatisfaction with being
at the university (X = 1.78). Studies carried out by
Brewin et al. and Fisher and Hood demonstrated that
the majority of students who left their hometowns
and houses to continue their education experienced
homesickness.[8,9] Other studies showed that 60%–70%
of nonnative students experienced homesickness.
Moreover, 7%–10% of these students experienced
severe homesickness which had interfered with their
daily activities.[10,11]
Dehghani et al. concluded that 94% of nonnative
students living in dormitories experienced some
degrees of homesickness and nearly 45% of them were
frequently or always dealing with homesickness.[12] The
results of Abbasnia (2000) and Adalf, Glicksman, and
Demers (2001) indicated that the level of nonnative
students’ dissatisfaction with being at the university
was high and this dissatisfaction was associated with
academic difficulties and the probability of dropping
out of the university.[13]
Over the past decade, academic and consulting centers,
attempting to provide counseling services for students,
1538 Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017
reported high prevalence of severe mental problems in
this population. According to a national survey conducted
in 724 consulting centers,[14] 85% of students suffer from
severe mental problems. These problems, including
learning disabilities (71%), self‑injury incidents (51%),
eating disorders (38%), alcohol abuse problems (45%),
abusing other drugs (49%), concerns about sexual
assault on the campus (33%), and problems related to
sexual abuse (34%), were examined and indicated that
16% of students suffered from severe mental problems.
[15]
One of the major problems in this population which
has a growing trend is depression. Disorders related
to depression have increased at a rapid pace and affect
people of all communities.[16] A combination of genetic
factors, stress at early ages, and continuous stress
can determine an individual’s vulnerability to mental
disorders including depression.[17]
Due to dealing with stress caused by transition
from adolescence to adulthood, attempting to adapt
themselves with various conditions, maintaining good
academic performance, planning for the future, and
being away from home, students often encounter high
levels of anxiety. Due to this stress, many students
experience depression.[18]
Depression manifests itself in many activities through
low mood and/or loss of pleasure and willingness.[19]
In addition, this disorder is associated with a range
of emotional, cognitive, physical, and behavioral
symptoms including sadness, negative thoughts, sleep
disorders, thought disorders, loss of appetite, and low
levels of energy.[20] Depression affects 8%–12% of the
general population each year, and as predicted by the
World Health Organization by 2020, depression will
become the second leading cause of disability.[21] The
results of a study conducted on Canadian students
showed that a significant number of students (33%)
reported clinical symptoms of depression.[22]
Other studies indicated that not being familiar with the
campus in the early arrivals, leaving the family, being
away from the family, being incompatible with other
people in the new living condition, and not having
sufficient economic and welfare facilities were all
among factors which can predispose people to various
mental problems and disorders including depression.[23]
In their study aimed to examine mental health among
native and nonnative university students, Heidari
and Maktabi found that native students had higher
levels of mental health and experienced less loneliness
compared to nonnative students.[24]
The results of a study carried out by Khoshkhatti et al.
to examine the level of prevalence of depression among
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University
incoming college freshmen revealed that the prevalence
of depression among university students was 9.4%.
Additionally, considering the prevalence of depression,
there was a significant difference between native and
nonnative students such that nonnative students
experienced higher levels of depression.[25] The findings
of Ildarabadi et al., aimed to investigate the prevalence
of depression among students at Zabol University,
indicated that 35.7% of students did not experience
depression, 19.1% of them experienced mild depression,
13.4% of them were on the borderline of depression,
24.2% of students suffered from moderate depression,
6.4% of them experienced severe depression, and 1.3%
of students suffered from very severe depression. A total
of 64.3% of students suffered from various degrees of
depression; however, the prevalence of depression was
higher among native students compared to nonnative
students.[26]
The findings of a study carried out by Gilavand et al.
to examine anxiety and depression among native and
nonnative university students demonstrated that
there were no significant differences between native
and nonnative students with regard to anxiety and
depression. This lack of significant difference between
these two groups under study was probably due to the
small sample size which only included 62 students
(31 native students and 31 nonnative students).[27]
Moreover, in a study conducted by Rezaei et al., aimed
to examine the prevalence of depression among
university students, the obtained results showed
that 55% of students suffered from various degrees
of depression, while others (45%) did not experience
depression. Among students suffered from depression,
24% of them suffered from mild depression, 25.2% of
them suffered from moderate depression, 3.2% of them
suffered from severe depression, and 1.4% of them
suffered from very severe depression. In addition, no
significant correlation was found between being native
and/or nonnative and depression.[28]
Among other issues with which nonnative students
may face, because of studying in another city far from
their hometown and being away from their home and
family, is Internet addiction.[29] The Internet is one
of the major tools used in the teaching and learning
process which facilitates access to the information.[30]
The rapid growth of the Internet is associated with
people’s need and motivations. Enabling easy access to
information, aiding people to communicate in an easy
way, and providing entertainments are all among the
undeniable advantages of using the Internet. However,
excessive or unadjusted use of the Internet is correlated
with a disorder, which, according to Morahan–Martin,
Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017
is called Internet abuse. This disorder refers to the
patterns of Internet use which result in the disruption
of people’s live, while they are not associated with a
particular disease or an addictive behavior. Some
researchers and specialists prefer to use the term
Internet addiction to refer to this disease as a form of
impulse control disorder.[31]
According to Young (1998), the term addiction can be
applied for Internet users, since symptoms of Internet
addiction are similar to those of addiction to alcohol and
cigarettes. The relevant criteria used to define Internet
addiction include being preoccupied with the Internet,
using the Internet in increasing amounts of time,
attempting unsuccessfully to cut back or stop using the
Internet, feeling irritable when attempting to cut down
or decrease the amount of using the Internet, being
online longer than originally intended, jeopardizing
or risking loss of significant relationships due to the
Internet use, lying to hide the extent of involvement
with the Internet, and using the Internet as a way to
escape from problems.[32] Few studies have compared
Internet addiction between native and nonnative
students. However, conducted studies on students
reflected this fact that the amount of Internet use and
the incidence and prevalence of Internet addiction are
increasing.[33,34]
The results of a study carried out in Turkey showed
that 72.2% of students used the Internet for creating
and maintaining their social friendships, 46% of them
applied it because of their loneliness, 44% of them used
the Internet for educational use, and 38.2% of them
used it for entertainment.[34] In a study conducted
on university students in Semnan Province, Khatib
Zanjani and Agah Harris revealed that 23.8% of
students suffered from mild Internet addiction and
1.8% of them suffered from severe Internet addiction.
Aiming to compare the status of Internet addiction
among students, Hosseini Beheshtian indicated that
students who did not live in dormitories were more
addicted to the Internet compared to those who lived in
dormitories. These results were obtained considering
the limited access, low speed of the Internet, and the
ability to access the Internet in different places of the
dormitory and university. Moreover, this study showed
that 8.9% of students, i.e., 9.5% of female students and
8.3% of male students were addicted to the Internet.
Overall, given the criticality of this period and the
stress with which university students deal during
their student life, especially nonnative students who
are faced with depression and anxiety caused by being
away from their home and family,[35] and since students
are the largest and the most important group of people
who use Internet services and facilities, examining
1539
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University
undesirable consequences of excessive use of this
technology, such as decreasing self‑esteem, decreasing
verbal and nonverbal skills, reducing listening skills,
and decreasing interpersonal communications, which
can affect young people seem essential.
Objective
In this regard, the present study aimed to compare
homesickness, depression, and Internet addiction
between native and nonnative students at University of
Sistan and Baluchestan. Given the topic and objectives
of the current study and considering the theoretical
foundations and conducted studies, the following
research questions are raised:
1. What is the prevalence of depression and Internet
addition among native and nonnative students?
2. Is there any significant difference between native
and nonnative students considering homesickness?
3. Is there any significant difference between native
and nonnative students considering the level of
depression?
4. Is there any significant difference between native
and nonnative students considering Internet
addiction?
Materials and Methods
The method of this study was casual‑comparative.
The statistical population of this study included
all postgraduate students at University of Sistan
and Baluchestan (Iran) in the academic year
2015–2016 (n = 1700). Among all these native and
nonnative students studying in University of Sistan
and Baluchestan, 204 students (102 native students
and 102 nonnative students) were selected using the
convenience sampling method. After collecting the
questionnaires, the data were obtained and analyzed.
The following questionnaires were applied in the
current study.
The Archer et al. homesickness questionnaire
This questionnaire was designed by Archer et al. (1998)
to evaluate homesickness among university students.
The original questionnaire has 23 items and 2 subscales
including attachment to home and dissatisfaction
with being at the university. This is a self‑reported
questionnaire. Participants answer the questions based
on a 5‑point Likert‑type scale (ranging from 1 = very low
to 5 = very high). Given the statistical results related
to the Iranian version of this questionnaire, three items
were eliminated and the final version includes thirty
items, each subscale is examined by 15 items. Items
number 4, 9, 15, and 30 are scored inversely.
• Attachment to home: Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11,
1540 Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017
14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 27
• Dissatisfaction with being at the university: Items
4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29,
and 30.
In a study conducted by Archer et al., the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients related to attachment to home and
dissatisfaction with being at the university were,
respectively, 0.83 and 0.85, indicating that this
questionnaire has a good internal consistency.[36] In
another study carried out by  Ghanbari et al. (2013),
the obtained Cronbach’s alpha coefficients related to
attachment to home and dissatisfaction with being
at the university were 0.90 and 0.82, respectively.
The correlation coefficients calculated twice within
3 weeks indicated that the correlation coefficient of the
whole scale was 0.81 and the correlation coefficients
of attachment to home and dissatisfaction with being
at the university were, respectively, 0.83 and 0.78,
showing an acceptable test–retest reliability of this
questionnaire.[37] Besharat et al. evaluated the concurrent
validity between this questionnaire’s test scores and
those of the general health questionnaire (GHQ). The
correlation between these two tests was 0.85.[38] In the
present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
used to calculate this questionnaire’s reliability, the
result of which was 0.85 for the whole scale.
The Beck Depression Inventory‑21)
This inventory was developed by Beck et al. and was
revised in 1978 to assess and measure depression. This
inventory included 21 items which are developed based
on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders criteria to evaluate emotional, cognitive,
motivational, and physiological aspects of depression.
Each of the items (symptoms) has four degrees which
are scored from 0 (the lowest level) to 3 (the highest
level of depression). The minimum and maximum
scores are, respectively, 0 and 63. This inventory is
used to evaluate the severity of depression in people
older than 13 years. Scores in the range of 0–9 indicate
the minimum depression, 10–18 demonstrate mild
depression, 20–29 show moderate depression, and
scores in the range of 30–63 reveal severe depression.[39]
In a study conducted by Rahimi, the results indicated
that the Beck Depression Inventory has a high
internal consistency (α = 0.78) and has an acceptable
reliability over time (0.73). Moreover, the simultaneous
implementation of this inventory with GHQ‑28 and
the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale‑21 indicated
that this inventory has a good concurrent validity.[40]
In the present study, to evaluate the reliability of this
inventory, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used,
the result of which was 0.92 for the whole scale.
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University

The Young Internet Addiction Test
This test was developed by Young (1998) and has twenty
items which evaluate Internet addiction. Respondents
should answer the items based on a 6‑point Likert‑type
scale including non (1), sometimes (2), often (3),
usually (4), always (5), and not applicable (0). The scores
range from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate higher
levels of Internet addiction. This test has six subscales
including salience (items 10, 12, 13, 15, and 19),
excessive use (items 1, 2, 14, 18, and 20), neglecting
work or procrastination (items 6, 8, and 9), anticipation
or the impact on the performance (items 7 and 11), lack
of control (items 5, 16, and 17), and neglecting social
life (items 3 and 4). After determining the final scores,
the user’s status is characterized as follows: scores below
20 indicate lack of addiction (nonuser), scores in the
range of 20–49 show normal use, scores in the range of
50–79 demonstrate mild addiction (people at risk), and
scores in the range of 80–100 indicate severe addiction.[41]
Widyanto, Griffiths, and Brunsden (2011) examined the
reliability of this test. The statistical analysis indicated
that the correlation coefficient between the grading
scale and the Internet Addiction Test was 0.89. Using
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, in the current study,
the reliability of this test was obtained as 0.92. In the
current study, the obtained data were analyzed using
multivariate analysis of variance and t‑test.
Results
The results indicated that a total of 204
students (102 native and 102 nonnative students)
participated in this study. The results of the first
question (what is the prevalence of depression and
Internet addiction among native and nonnative
students at University of Sistan and Baluchestan?) are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1 indicates that, among 204 students,
14 students (6.9%) experience minimum degree
of depression, 19 students (9.3%) suffer from mild
depression, 46 students (22.5%) suffer from moderate
depression, and 125 students (61.3) suffer from
severe depression. Moreover, 31 students (15.2%) are
nonusers, 112 students (54.9%) are normal users, 53
students (26%) suffer from mild Internet addiction,
and 8 students (3.9%) suffer from severe Internet
addiction. The results related to being native and
nonnative are presented as follows. Among native
students, 14 students (13.7%) experience minimum
degree of depression, 19 students (18.6%) experience
mild depression, 32 students (31.4%) suffer from
moderate depression, and 37 students (63.3%) suffer
from severe depression. Additionally, 20 native
students (19.6%) are nonusers, 55 students (53.9%)
are normal users, 24 students (23.5%) suffer from mild
Internet addiction, and 3 students (2.9%) suffer from
sever Internet addiction. Among nonnative students,
14 students (13.7%) suffer from moderate depression
and 88 students (86.3%) suffer from severe depression.
Additionally, 11 nonnative students (10.8%) are
nonusers, 57 students (55.9%) are normal users,
29 students (28.4%) suffer from mild Internet
addiction, and 5 students (4.9%) suffer from sever
Internet addiction.
To answer the second research question, i.e., is there
any significant difference between native and nonnative
students considering homesickness?, the means
and standard deviations related to homesickness are
presented in Table 2.
According to Table 3, the results of multivariate analysis
of variance (Wilks’ Lambda) with controlled variables
indicate that these two groups (native and nonnative
students) have multiple significant effects on the
dimensions of homesickness (P < 0.05) [Table 3].
In Table 4, one‑way analysis of variance between groups
was applied to examine the difference between native
and nonnative students considering their scores on

Table 1: The status of depression and Internet addition among native and nonnative students
University students Depression Internet addiction
Minimum Mild Moderate Severe Total Nonuser Normal Mild Severe Total
depression depression depression depression user addiction addiction
Native
n 14 19 32 37 102 20 55 24 3 102
Percentage based on gender 13.7 18.6 31.4 63.3 100 19.6 53.9 23.5 2.9 100
Nonnative
n 0 0 14 88 102 11 57 29 5 102
Percentage based on gender 0 0 13.6 86.3 100 10.8 55.9 28.4 4.9 100
Total
n 14 19 46 125 204 31 112 53 8 204
Total 6.9 9.3 22.5 61.3 100 15.2 54.9 26 3.9 100

Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017 1541
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University

Table 2: Descriptive results indicating the scores of native a significant difference was found between native and
and nonnative students on homesickness nonnative students considering their mean scores
Variable Group n Mean SD on depression such that mean score of nonnative
Homesickness Attachment to home Native 102 33.86 10.279
students on depression is higher than that of native
Nonnative 102 37.27 9.696 students (t = 10.896, P = 0.0001) [Table 6].
Dissatisfaction with Native 102 32.47 7.962
being at the university Nonnative 102 41.75 6.590 Moreover, to answer the fourth research question, i.e.,
Total score on Native 102 66.33 16.313 is there any significant difference between native and
homesickness Nonnative 102 79.03 13.670 nonnative students considering Internet addiction?, the
SD=Standard deviation means and standard deviations related to dimensions
of Internet addiction are presented in Table 7.
Table 3: The results of multivariate analysis of variance
(Wilks’ lambda) for dimensions of homesickness According to Table 8, the results of multivariate
analysis of variance (Wilks’ Lambda) with controlled
Source Value F Hypothesis Error Significant η2
df df variables indicate that these two groups (native and
Native and 0.696 43.907 2 201 0.001 0.304 nonnative students) have multiple significant effects on
nonnative students dimensions of Internet addiction (P < 0.05) [Table 8].

In Table 9, one‑way analysis of variance between

Table 4: The results of multivariate analysis of variance
conducted to examine the dimensions of homesickness
among native and nonnative students
Source Sum of Df Mean F Significant
squares squares
Attachment to home 593.647 1 593.647 5.946 0.01
Dissatisfaction with 4396.123 1 4396.123 82.298 0.0001
being at the university
Total score on 8220.711 1 8220.711 36.296 0.0001
homesickness
homesickness. Examining three dependent variables,
i.e., attachment to home, dissatisfaction with being at
the university, and the total score on homesickness,
and one independent variable, i.e., being native and
nonnative, using the modified Bonferroni value that
is equal to 0.001, the results demonstrate statistically
significant differences between native and nonnative
students, considering subscales of homesickness,
including attachment to home (F = 5.946, P < 0.01,
partial Eta = 0.029), dissatisfaction with being at the
university (F = 82.298, P < 0.001, partial Eta = 0.289),
and the total score on homesickness (F = 36.296,
P < 0.01, partial Eta = 0.152) [Table 4].
To illustrate the difference between these two groups
with regard to homesickness, least significant
difference (LSD) post hoc test was used, the results of
which are presented in Table 5. The results show that
mean scores of nonnative students on homesickness and
its subscales (attachment to home and dissatisfaction
with being at the university) are higher than those of
native students (P < 0.05) [Table 5].
groups was applied to examine the difference between
native and nonnative students considering their
scores on subscales of Internet addiction. Examining
η2
seven dependent variables, i.e., salience, excessive
use, neglecting work, anticipation, lack of control,
0.029
0.289
neglecting social life, and the total score of Internet
addiction, and one independent variable, i.e., being
0.152 native and nonnative, using the modified Bonferroni
value that is equal to 0.007, the results demonstrate
statistically significant differences between native and
nonnative students considering subscales of Internet
addiction, including salience (F = 11.915, P < 0.05,
partial Eta = 0.056), neglecting work (F = 5.194,
P < 0.05, partial Eta = 0.016), anticipation (F = 5.532,
P  < 0.05, partial Eta = 0.027), and neglecting social
life (F = 6.132, P < 0.05, partial Eta = 0.029), and
the total score on Internet addiction (F = 7.129,
P < 0.05, partial Eta = 0.034). With regard to subscales
of excessive used and lack of control, no significant
difference was found between native and nonnative
students (P > 0.007) [Table 9].
To illustrate the difference between these two groups
with regard to subscales of Internet addiction, LSD post
hoc test was used, the results of which are presented
in Table 10. The results show that mean scores of
nonnative students on salience, neglecting work,
anticipation, neglecting social life, and their total score
on Internet addiction are higher than those of native
students (P < 0.05) [Table 10].
Discussion

When examining the third research question, i.e., is The present study aimed to compare homesickness,
there any significant difference between native and depression, and Internet addiction in native and
nonnative students considering the level of depression?, nonnative students at University of Sistan and
1542 Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University

Table 5: The results of least significant difference post hoc Table 7: Descriptive results indicating the scores of native
test considering the mean scores of native and nonnative and nonnative students on internet addiction
students on homesickness Variable Group n Mean SD
Variable Group (I) Group (J) Mean SE Significant Internet Salience Native 102 9.20 5.197
difference addiction Nonnative 102 11.82 5.665
of (I-J)
Excessive use Native 102 9.75 5.719
Attachment Native Nonnative −3.412 1.399 0.01
Nonnative 102 11.19 5.667
to home students students
Neglecting work Native 102 4.59 3.527
Dissatisfaction Native Nonnative −9.284 1.023 0.0001
with being at students students Nonnative 102 5.72 3.539
the university Anticipation Native 102 3.59 2.748
The total Native Nonnative 2.107 −12.696 0.0001 Nonnative 102 4.48 2.669
score on students students Lack of control Native 102 6.34 4.021
homesickness Nonnative 102 6.91 3.763
SE=Standard error Neglecting social Native 102 2.78 2.440
life Nonnative 102 3.65 2.535
Table 6: The results of independent t‑test comparing Total score of Native 102 36.25 19.969
Internet addiction Nonnative 102 43.76 20.256
mean scores of native and native students on depression
Variable Groups n Mean SD t Degree of Significant SD=Standard deviation
freedom
Depression Native 102 24.38 12.521 10.896 189.998 0.0001 Table 8: The results of multivariate analysis of variance
Nonnative 102 41.46 9.685 ‑ (Wilks’ lambda) for dimensions of Internet addiction
SD=Standard deviation Source Value F Hypothesis Error Significant η2
df df
Baluchestan. The results of this study indicated that Native and 0.909 3.304 6 197 0.004 0.091
6.9% of these students experienced minimum degree nonnative students
of depression, and 9.3%, 22.5%, and 61.3% of these
students, respectively, suffered from mild, moderate, the university. These findings can be explained in this
and severe depression. These statistics are noteworthy. way that many students may be away from their home
These findings are not in line with the results obtained and family for the first time in their lives. This sudden
from studies conducted by Rezaei et al. and Ildarabadi departure from their house, being away from their family,
et al. which indicated that the prevalence rates of mild meeting new people at the university, and also getting
and moderate depression were higher than that of to know a new culture and a different environment can
severe depression.[26,28] The high prevalence of severe challenge students’ lives. Therefore, it is normal that
depression in the current study may be due to the incoming students feel some degrees of attachment to
fact that the number of educational, health, welfare, home when they move to a new city. Additionally, it
and recreational facilities in Zahedan is less than should be noted that, due to enforcing extreme rules in
that in other cities. Moreover, 15.2% of students were dormitories and controlling most individual and personal
nonusers, 54.9% of them were normal users, 26% of aspects of students’ lives including their personal
them experienced mild Internet addiction, and 3.9% of relationships, the way they dress, the time they go out
them suffered from severe depression. These findings and come in, lack of welfare and economic facilities,
are consistent with the results of Khatib Zanjani and and many other reasons, students feel unsatisfied with
Agah Harris.[42) This high number of normal users their lives and do not have a sense of belonging and
can be explained by considering the level of access, attachment to the university and dormitory.
accessible facilities, and family and cultural barriers.
In this study, nonnative students, compared to native
According to this study, nonnative students, compared to students, obtained higher scores on depression. This is
native students, obtained higher scores on homesickness in line with the results of Peluso et al., Retteck, Heidari
and subscales of attachment to home and dissatisfaction and Maktabi, and Khoshkhatti et  al.[20,23,24,25] and is
with being at the university. As mentioned earlier, not consistent with the findings of Golavand et  al.,
no similar studies were conducted to examine the Ildarabadi et al., and Rezaei et al.[26,27,28] To explain this
differences between native and nonnative students with finding, it can be noted that some factors including
regard to homesickness. However, the results of the being unfamiliar with the campus and culture of the
current study are consistent with other researches[6‑12] city in which the university is located, being away from
which demonstrated that a high number of nonnative the family and friends, living in dormitories, being in a
students experienced homesickness when they entered new relationship network, being inconsistence with the
Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017 1543
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University

new environment and being unable to adapt to the new
environment, being dissatisfied with the field of study
and/or with the educational practices, and the like can
cause various mental problems for nonnative students
and lead to their poor academic performance.
Accordingly, considering the results obtained from
this study, nonnative students, compared to native
students, gained higher scores on Internet addiction
and subscales of salience, neglecting work, anticipation,
and neglecting social life. Few studies have been carried
out to examine the issue; however, in general, studies
conducted by Shahbazirad and Mirderikvand, Siomos
et  al., Orsal et  al., and Khatib Zanjani and Agah
Harris[29,33,34,42] reported high prevalence of various
degrees of Internet addiction among university students,
especially among those who were away from their home
and family. However, Hosseini Beheshtian concluded
that students who did not live in dormitories were more
addicted to the Internet compared to those who lived
in dormitories.[43] Overall, obtaining higher scores on
Internet addiction by nonnative students in the current
study can be explained in this way that those nonnative
students feel more loneliness and this loneliness leads
them to avoid social contacts.[24] Therefore, it is really
normal that students, as a result of this loneliness and
low levels of social communications, use the Internet as
a method to deal with their loneliness and be obsessed
with it, due to the amazing, dynamic, attractive, and
adventurous topics on the Internet and easy access, for
a long time. Moreover, it can be stated that being away
Table 9: The results of multivariate analysis of variance
conducted to examine the dimensions of Internet
addiction among native and nonnative students
Source Sum of Df Mean F Significant
squares squares
Salience 352.078 1 352.078 11.915
Excessive use 105.926 1 105.926 3.268
Neglecting work 64.828 1 64.828 5.194
Anticipation 40.593 1 40.593 5.532
Lack of control 16.490 1 16.490 1.087
Neglecting social life 37.961 1 37.961 6.132
Total score on 2883.770 1 2883.770 7.129
internet addiction
from the family, being in another city, and receiving
less social support from the family and friends can be
considered as the main factors affecting harmful use of
the Internet. Additionally, to explain this finding that
no significant difference was found between these two
groups considering excessive use and lack of control, it
can be stated that, since the Internet has become the
most effective educational tool used for learning and
promoting academic fields, particularly for students,
students become more dependent on this technology
than the last two decades. In fact, excessive use of
the Internet to facilitate the educational and research
activities has become the norm among students.
Conclusion
This study faced with various limitations among which
the following can be mentioned. Since the sample of
the current study only included postgraduate students
at University of Sistan and Baluchestan, caution should
be taken when generalizing the obtained findings to
other populations and universities. Moreover, use of
self‑report questionnaires, the possibility of choosing
inaccurate responses by the respondents, lack of
conducting interviews, and the fact that this study was
a cross‑sectional study were all among the limitations of
the present study. A short history of Internet addiction
and lack of studies conducted on nonnative students
were among other limitations of this study. Therefore,
examining Internet addiction and its consequences
requires conducting more detailed longitudinal
studies. Considering the mentioned limitations and
results obtained from this study, it is suggested that
future studies pay special attention to the prevalence
of Internet addiction among nonnative students. In
η2 addition, carrying out studies in other populations,
applying tools including conducting interviews, and
0.001 0.056 conducting longitudinal studies aimed to examine
0.07 0.016 the Internet addiction are highly recommended. With
0.02 0.025 regard to the results of the current study which indicated
0.02 0.027 the high prevalence of homesickness, depression, and
0.29 0.005 Internet addiction among nonnative students, paying
0.01 0.029 special attention to the mental health of students
0.008 0.034 in universities is highly recommended. Therefore,
providing welfare facilities, determining the causes of

Table 10: The results of least significant difference post hoc test considering the mean scores of native and nonnative
students on internet addiction
Variable Group (I) Group (J) Mean difference of (I-J) SE Significant
Salience Native students Nonnative students −2.627 0.761 0.001
Neglecting work Native students Nonnative students −1.127 0.495 0.02
Anticipation Native students Nonnative students −0.892 0.379 0.02
Neglecting social life Native students Nonnative students −0.863 0.348 0.01
Total score on Internet addiction Native students Nonnative students −7.520 2.816 0.008
SE=Standard deviation

1544 Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University
mental problems in students, and considering suitable
solutions and strategies to prevent these mental
problems are of significant importance.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Shoja’nori FA, Shokri F. Identification and Classification of Problems
among Non‑Native Female Students (A Qualitative Research). Vol: 77.
6th Congress on Hidden Damage Caused by Student Life, Kurdistan,
Jihad University of Kermanshah 2013. p. 168‑72.
2. Thurber CA, Walton EA. Homesickness and adjustment in university
students. J Am Coll Health 2012;60:415‑9.
3. Urani M, Miller SA, Johnson JE, Petzel TP. Homesickness in socially
anxious first year college students. Coll Stud J  2003;37:392‑9.
4. Rigi Kootesh B, Raisi M. Ziapour A. Investigation of relationship
between internet addict with mental health and quality sleep in
students. Acta Medica Mediterranea 2016;32:1921-5.
5. Thurber CA, Walton E, American Academy of Pediatrics Council on
School Health. Preventing and treating homesickness. Pediatrics
2007;119:192‑201.
6. Montazeri N, Kianipour N, Nazari B, Ziapour A, Bakhshi S. Health
promoting behaviors among university students: A case-sectional
study of Kermanshah university of medical sciences. Int J Pediatr.
2017;5:5091-9.
7. Fisher S, Murray K, Frazer NA. Homesickness, health and efficiency
in first year students. J Environ Psychol 1985;5:181‑95.
8. Brewin C, Furnham A, Howes M. Demographic and psychological
determinants of homesickness and confiding among students. Br J
Psychol 1989;80:467‑77.
9. Fisher S, Hood B. Vulnerability factors in the transition to university:
Self‑reported mobility history and sex differences as factors in
psychological disturbance. Br J Psychol 1988;79 (Pt 3):309‑20.
10. Ziapour A, Zokaei A, Kahrizy FA Theoretical study of the standing of
social investment in the health sector. Soc Sci 2016;11:3682‑7.
11. Jalilian N, Ziapour A, Mokari Z, Kianipour N. A study of the relationship
between the components of spiritual health and happiness of students
at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in 2016. Ann Trop Med
Public Health 2017;10:1010-4.
12. Dehghani M, Khodapanahi MK, Ganjavi A. Role of personality,
attachment, mood indices, demographic factors, geographical
distance and gender in predicting homesickness. J Res Psychol Health
2008;2:35‑45.
13. Tabe’ Bordbar F, Rasoulzadeh Tabatabaee K, Azadfalah P,
Samani S. Evaluating the effectiveness of assertiveness training on
homesickness among female students. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci
2009;19:28‑33.
14. Gallagher R, Sysko H, Zhang B. National Survey of Counseling Center
Directors. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Counseling
Services; 2001.
15. Kitzrow MA. The mental health needs of today’s college students:
challenges and recommendations. NASPA J 2003;41:165‑80.
16. Kaur S, Deepti SS, Lal M. Prevalence and correlates of depression
among college going students of district Amritsar, India. Int Res J Med
Sci 2014;2:5‑9.
17. Moreira DP, Furegato AR. Stress and depression among students of
the last semester in two nursing courses. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem
2013;21:155‑62.
18. Saroukhani D, Delpishe A, Veisani Y, Saroukhani MT,
Ismaeelmanesh RA, Saiemiri K. Prevention of depression in university
Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017
students: a systematic review and meta‑analysis study. Hindawi J
Depress Res Treat 2013;11:1‑7.
19. Steadman K, Taskila T. Symptoms of Depression and Their Effects
on Employment. The Work Foundation; 2015.
20. Potter GG, Steffens DC. Contribution of depression to cognitive
impairment and dementia in older adults. Neurologist 2007;13:105‑17.
21. Leadbetter J. Depressive disorder and suicide in the older population:
A literature review of suicide prevention in this age group. Old Age
Psychiatry 2015;62:1‑9.
22. Peluso DL, Carleton RN, Asmundson GJ. Depression symptoms in
Canadian psychology graduate students: Do research productivity,
funding, and the academic advisory relationship play a role? Can J
Behav Sci 2011;43:119‑27.
23. Retteck SL. The mental health of student in higher education.
J Psychol 2003;5:80‑9.
24. Heidari S, Maktabi GH. Comparing cultural intelligence, loneliness,
academic burnout and mental health among native and non‑native
postgraduate students. J Women Cult 2011;3:45‑57.
25. Khoshkhatti N, Jafari A, Yazdinejad AR, Khoshkhatti N. The
Prevalence of depression among freshmen studying pharmacy in
Zanjan considering their demographic characteristics. J Dev Educ
Med Sci 2015;8:21‑8.
26. Ildarabadi I, Firozkohi MR, Mazloum SR, Navidian A. The prevalence
of depression in students at Zabol faculty of medical sciences in the
academic year 2001‑2002. Shahrekord Univ Med Sci 2004;6:15‑21.
27. Gilavand AR, Espidkar F, Fakhri A. A comparative evaluation of
depression and anxiety rate among native and non‑native students of
dentistry school at Ahvaz Jundishapour University of Medical Science.
Q Educ Dev Jundishapur 2015;6:185‑90.
28. Rezaei T, Yazdi Ravandi S, Ghaleiha A, Seif Rabei MA. Depression in
students of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences in the academic
year 2014‑2015: Examining the role of demographic variables.
Pajouhan Sci J 2015;13:1‑8.
29. Shahbazirad A, Mirderikvand F. The relationship of internet addiction
with depression, mental health and demographic characteristic in the
students of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. J Ilam Univ
Med Sci 2014;22:1‑8.
30. Arthur C, Brafi PO, Kuranchine A. The use of Academic Libraries
among students in Tertiary Institutions in the Sunyani Municipality,
Ghanca. J Educ Practice 2013;4:117-26.
31. Gencer SL, Koc M. Internet abuse among teenagers and its relations
to internet usage patterns and demographics. Educ Technol Soc
2012;15:25‑36.
32. Northrup JC, Lapierre C, Kirk J, Rae C. The internet process addiction
test: Screening for addictions to processes facilitated by the internet.
Behav Sci (Basel) 2015;5:341‑52.
33. Siomos KE, Dafouli ED, Braimiotis DA, Mouzas OD, Angelopoulos NV.
Internet addiction among Greek adolescent students. Cyberpsychol
Behav 2008;11:653‑7.
34. Orsal O, Orsal O, Unsal A, Ozalp S. Evaluation of internet addiction
and depression among university students. Procardia Soc Behav Sci
2013;82:445‑54.
35. Najafi Kalyani M, Pourjam E, Jamshidi N, Karimi SH, Najafi Kalyani V.
Survey of stress, anxiety, depression and self‑concept of students of
Fasa University of medical sciences in 2010. J Fasa Univ Med Sci
2013;3:235‑40.
36. Archer J, Ireland J, Amos SL, Broad H, Currid L. Derivation of a
homesickness scale. Br J Psychol 1998;89 (Pt 2):205‑21.
37. Ghanbari N, Habibi M, Shamsodini S. Effectiveness of
cognitive‑behavioral stress management in promotion psychological,
emotional, and social well‑being of Homesick University students.
J Clin Psychol 2013;5:47‑56.
38. Besharat MA, Farhadi M, Gilani B. Investigating the relationship
between attachment styles and homesickness. Univ Tabriz Res Sci
J Psychol 2006;1:33‑56.
39. Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the beck
depression inventory twenty‑five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol
Rev 1988;8:77‑100.
40. Rahimi CH. Application of the beck depression inventory‑II in Iranian
1545
 Khushde, et al.: A comparative study of homesickness, depression, and internet addiction between native and nonnative students at University
University students. J Clin Psychol Pers 2014;21:173‑88. in students of Payame Noor University in Semnan province. Acad J
41. Sepehrian F, Jokar L. Determining the rate of prevalence of internet E Learn (Media) 2014;5:1‑7.
addiction among students of universities of Urmia city and factors 43. Hosseini Beheshtian SM. A comparison of internet addiction among
predicting it. J Behav 2010;17:51‑60. male and female students studying in universities of Tehran. Women
42. Khatib Zanjani N, Agah Harris M. The prevalence of internet addiction Stud Res Inst Humanit Cult Stud 2011;2:23‑42.

1546 Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Volume 10 | Issue 6 | November - December 2017

View publication stats