Dijital Bölünmenin Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve MANOVA ile Ölçülmesi: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiyede’ki bireylerin Internet kullanım yetkinliklerinin kaç faktörde tanımlanabileceğini Confirmatory Factor Analysis ile araştırmak ve bu faktörleri belirleyen indikatörlerin bireylerin cinsiyet, yaş ve eğitim düzeylerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını yani bir digital divide olup olmadığını Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) yöntemi ile analiz etmektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye İstatistik kurumunun IT Usage 2016 verileri kullanılmıştır. Anketin tüm verileri kategoriktir. Ancak Confirmatory Faktor Analysis ve MANOVA continous variables uygulanan yöntemler olduğundan öncelikle değişkenler Optimal Scaling yöntemi ile quantified variable lara dönüştürülmüştür. Confirmatory Factor Analysis ve MANOVA uygulanmadan önce multivariate normality ve equality of variance-covariance matrices varsayımlarının geçerliliği araştırılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre İnternet kulllanım yetkinliklerinin; Kişisel Amaçla İnternette Yapılan Faaliyetler, E-Learning Kullanımı, E-Devlet Kullanımı ve Yazılım ile İlgili Faaliyetler olmak üzere dört faktörden oluştuğu görülmüştür. MANOVA sonuçlarına göre bu faktörler cinsiyete, yaşa ve eğitime bağlı olarak anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaşmaktadır. Buna göre Türkiye’deki bireyler arasında 2. ve 3. düzeyde digital dividenin olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Bölünme,Optimal Ölçekleme,Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi,MANOVA

Measuring Digital Divide by Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and MANOVA : A Case of Turkey

Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine the factors of individuals’ skills with regard to internet usage in Turkey by Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and to analyze the factor indicators in order to clarify if they vary by gender, age and education level, i.e. if a digital divide is in question, by Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) method. For that purpose, the data on “IT Usage – 2016” of Turkish Statistical Institute was selected as baseline. All data used in this study is categorical. Though, since Confirmatory Factor Analysis and MANOVA are methods using continuous variables, firstly, the variables were transferred to quantified variables by Optimal Scaling method, and before employing Confirmatory Factor Analysis and MANOVA methods, the validity of both multivariate normality and equality of variance-covariance matrices hypotheses was checked. The results obtained showed that the skill with regard to internet usage consists of four factors: personal intended internet activities, e-learning, e-government services, and software related activities. According to the MANOVA results, these factors significantly vary by gender, age, and education level, and thus, there’s a second and a third level digital divide between individuals in Turkey.

Keywords

• Digital Divide,Optimal Scaling,Confirmatory Factor Analysis,MANOVA

References

1. Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide—A typology of Internet users in Europe. International journal of human-computer studies, 69(3), 123-138.
2. Çilan, Ç. A., Bolat, B. A., & Coşkun, E. (2009). Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 98-105.
3. Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Multivariate data analysis. New York; J. Wiley.
4. Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Bacao, F. (2012). Digital divide across the European Union. Information & Management, 49(6), 278-291.
5. Cruz-Jesus, F., Vicente, M. R., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). The education-related digital divide: An analysis for the EU-28. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 72-82.
6. Deniz, E., Bozdogan, H., & Katragadda, S. (2011). Structural equation modeling (SEM) of categorical and mixed-data using the Novel Gifi transformations and information complexity (ICOMP) criterion. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 40(1), 86-123.
7. Wu, T. F., Chen, M. C., Yeh, Y. M., Wang, H. P., & Chang, S. C. H. (2014). Is digital divide an issue for students with learning disabilities?. Computers in human behavior, 39, 112-117.
8. Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3-10. ISO 690 Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89-97.

9. Gifi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.
10. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
11. Helsper, E. J., & Alexander, J. V. (2016). Measuring Types of Internet Use. From Digital Skills to Tangible Outcomes project report. Oxford: London School of Economics, University of Twente, Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved July, 25, 2016. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications
12. The Economist, Intelligence Unit. The Inclusive Internet Index: Bridging Digital Divides. (2017) https://theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com/assets/external/downloads/3i-bridging-digital-divides.pdf Accessed 18 Feb 2018
13. International Telecommunication Union, Measuring The Information Society Report 2013
14. Johnson, R. A., Wichern D.W. (1998), Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 4th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
15. Kline, R. B. (2005), Principals and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Second Edition, Guilford Publication Inc.
16. Kline R.B.(2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edition,The Guilford Press
17. Meulman J.J. (1998) Optimal Scaling Methods For Multivariate Categorical Data Analysis, SPSS White Paper, Chicago,
18. Mumporeze, N., & Prieler, M. (2017). Gender digital divide in Rwanda: A qualitative analysis of socioeconomic factors. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1285-1293.
19. Okunola, O. M., Rowley, J., & Johnson, F. (2017). The multi-dimensional digital divide: Perspectives from an e-government portal in Nigeria. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 329-339.
20. Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer Internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721-744.
21. Puspitasari, L., & Ishii, K. (2016). Digital divides and mobile Internet in Indonesia: impact of smartphones. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 472-483.
22. Riggins, F. J., & Dewan, S. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for information systems, 6(12), 13.
23. Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and informatics.
24. Tacq,J(1998), Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social Science Research: From Problem to Analysis, Sage Publication, London
25. Turkish Statistical Institute IT Usage Survey 2016
26. Zhu, S. (2011, May). A two-level theoretical model on digital divide in individual ecommerce utilization in China. In Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on (pp. 92-96). IEEE.