Year 2021, Volume 12, Issue 2, 182 - 191, 30.06.2021

Abdullah Faruk KILIÇ İbrahim UYSAL Bilal KALKAN

https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.864336

Abstract

Yirmi birinci yüzyılda emojilerin iletişim platformlarında geniş bir kullanım alanı oluşmuştur. Bunun bir sonucu olarak emojiler ölçeklerde kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Ancak ölçeklerde emojilerin Likert tipi tepki kategorilerinin yerine kullanılmasının etkisi üzerine incelenen alanyazında kısıtlı sayıda araştırma olduğu gözlenmiştir. Buradan hareketle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmanın odak noktası ölçeklerde emoji ve Likert tipi tepki kategorileri kullanılmasının ortaya çıkarabileceği farklılıkları incelemektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’nin farklı bölgelerinde yer alan iki devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 341 öğrenciye 3’lü, 5’li ve 7’li puanlanan Likert tipi ve emoji tepki kategorilerinden oluşan Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Tepki kategorileri farklılaşan altı forma cevap veren katılımcıların verileri üzerinde açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile güvenirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuçta açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile güvenirlik analizlerinde anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmadığı belirlenmiştir. Ancak korelasyonel analizler incelendiğinde, özellikle tepki kategori sayısı arttıkça emoji ve Likert tepki kategorilerinden elde edilen verilerin korelasyonunun azaldığını gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

emoji, likert tipi ölçek, ölçek geliştirme, tepki kategorisi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik

An Alternative To Likert Scale: Emoji

Abstract

In the twenty-first century, the wide use of emojis in communication platforms has emerged. As a result, emojis have started to be used in scales. However, there are a limited number of studies in the literature that focuses on the effect of using emojis instead of Likert-type response categories in scales. Therefore, the focus of this study is to examine the differences that may arise from using emoji and Likert-type response categories in scales. For this purpose, the 3, 5, and 7-point Likert-type and 3, 5, and 7 emoji response categories Psychological Well-Being Scale was applied to 341 students studying at two state universities located in different regions of Turkey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were carried out on the data of the participants who answered the six forms with different response categories. As a result, it was determined that there were no significant differences in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses. However, when correlational analyses were examined, it was observed that as the number of reaction categories increased, the correlation scores of emoji and Likert-type scales decreased.

Keywords

emoji, likert scale, scale development, response category, validity and reliability

References

• Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: An alternate version. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2), 331-342. doi:10.1177/147078539703900202
• Alismail, S., & Zhang, H. (2018, January). The use of emoji in electronic user experience questionnaire: An exploratory case study. Paper presented at 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2018.427
• Anderson, L. W. (1991). Attitudes and their measurement (N. Çıkrıkçı, Trans.). Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 24(1), 241-250. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000000734 (Original work published 1988).
• Bayat, B. (2014). Scaling, scales and “Likert” scaling technique in applied social science researches. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 16(3), 1-24. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gaziuiibfd/issue/28309/300829
• Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361-379). New York: Guilford.
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
• Chen, Z., Lu, X., Shen, S., Ai, W., Liu, X., & Mei, Q. (2017). Through a gender lens: An empirical study of emoji usage over large-scale android users. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05546
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• Danesi, M. (2017). The semiotics of emoji. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Deubler, G., Swaney-Stueve, M., Jepsen, T., & Su-Fern, B. P. (2020). The k-state emoji scale. Journal of Sensory Studies, 35(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1111/joss.12545
• Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
• Dwyer, E. E. (1993). Attitude scale construction: A review of the literature (Report No. ED359201). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED359201
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, E. W., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Guttman, L. (1941). The quantification of a class of attributes: A theory and method of scale construction. In P. Horst (Ed.), The prediction of personal adjustment (pp. 321-348). New York: Social Science Research Council.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
• Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575
• Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111-117. doi: 10.1177/001316447403400115
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practise of structural equating modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 5-55. Retrieved from https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2020). Factor (Version 10.10.03) [Computer software]. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
• Marengo, D., Giannotta, F., & Settanni, M. (2017). Assessing personality using emoji: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 112(1), 74-78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.037
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. London: Sage Publications.
• Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. L., Garrido, M. V., Lopes, D., Cavalheiro, B., & Gaspar, R. (2018). Motives, frequency and attitudes toward emoji and emoticon use. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1925-1934. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.005
• Price, L. R. (2017). Psychometric methods. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Setty, J. V., Srinivasan, I., Radhakrishna, S., Melwani, A. M., & Dr, M. K. (2019). Use of an animated emoji scale as a novel tool for anxiety assessment in children. Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 19(4), 227-233. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.4.227
• Swaney-Stueve, M., Jepsen, T., & Deubler, G. (2018). The emoji scale: A facial scale for the 21st century. Food Quality and Preference, 68, 183-190. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.03.002
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
• Telef, B. B. (2013). The adaptation of psychological well-being into Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(3), 374-384. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87222
• Thurstone, L. L. (1927). Three psychophysical laws. Psychological Review, 34(6), 424-432. doi: 10.1037/h0073028
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002