Dijital Empati Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Dijital iletişim ortamları, kişilerarası etkileşimin başlıca bağlamlarından biri konumuna gelmiş; sözel olmayan ipuçlarının daralması, eş zamansızlık ve görece anonimlik gibi yapısal nitelikleriyle empatik kavrayış ile yardım etme eğilimini yeniden biçimlendirmiştir. Bu araştırma, çevrimiçi ortamlarda empatik anlama ve davranışsal yönelimi ölçen Dijital Empati Ölçeği (DEÖ)'ni geliştirmek ve psikometrik özelliklerini belgelemek amacıyla üç aşamalı bir desen çerçevesinde yürütülmüştür. Birinci aşamada (N = 300), 29 maddelik aday havuzu üzerinde uygulanan açımlayıcı faktör analizi (temel eksen yöntemi), toplam değişkenliğin %45.6'sını açıklayan 12 maddelik tek faktörlü bir yapıyı ortaya çıkarmıştır (KMO = .892; Bartlett χ²(66) = 1464.63, p < .001; faktör yükleri .57–.68). İkinci aşamada (N = 417) bu yapı doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle test edilmiş ve uyum indeksleri kabul edilebilir bulunmuştur (CFI = .945; TLI = .928; RMSEA = .072; SRMR = .050). Aynı aşamada dış geçerlik kanıtları da elde edilmiştir: genel empati ile r = .599; dijital iyi oluş ile r = .367; sosyal beğenirlik ile r = .164; iç tutarlılık α = .929; iki yarı güvenirliği r = .871. Üçüncü aşamada (N = 80), 14 günlük arayla yapılan iki ölçüm arasındaki test–tekrar test korelasyonu yüksek bulunmuştur (r = .817, p < .001). Bulgular, DEÖ'nün dijital ortamlarda empatiyi ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Dijital empati
• Çevrimiçi iletişim
• Ölçek geliştirme
• Sosyal medya
• Dijital iyi oluş

Digital Empathy Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Online communication platforms now constitute one of the principal arenas of interpersonal exchange; constraints on nonverbal signaling, asynchronous turn-taking, and varying degrees of anonymity together reshape how individuals interpret others' states and decide whether to act on them. The present research developed and examined the psychometric properties of the Digital Empathy Scale (DES), a 12-item instrument intended to capture empathic orientation in online contexts, using a sequential three-phase design. In the first phase (N = 300), a 29-item pool was submitted to principal axis factoring; the analysis returned a one-factor solution explaining 45.6% of the total variance (KMO = .892; Bartlett χ²(66) = 1464.63, p < .001; factor loadings .57–.68). In the second phase (N = 417), confirmatory factor analysis on an independent sample supported the proposed structure (CFI = .945; TLI = .928; RMSEA = .072; SRMR = .050) and yielded external validity evidence (general empathy r = .599; digital well-being r = .367; social desirability r = .164; α = .929; split-half r = .871). In the third phase (N = 80), the scale exhibited substantial temporal stability across a two-week interval (r = .817, p < .001). Taken together, the findings provide convergent psychometric evidence supporting the DES as a sound instrument for assessing empathy within digital communication settings.

Keywords

• Digital empathy
• Online communication
• Scale development
• Social media
• Digital well-being

References

1. Akın Arıkan, Ç., Baştemur, Ş., & Demirtaş Zorbaz, S. (2021). Marlowe-Crowne Sosyal Beğenirlik Ölçeği Kısa Formu C'nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 18(2), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.5152/hayef.2021.20026
2. Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41(4), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3
3. Arslankara, V. B., Demir, A., Öztaş, Ö., & Usta, E. (2022). Digital well-being scale validity and reliability study. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 4(2), 263–274.
4. Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). MIT Press.
5. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
7. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

9. Collins, A. M., Warburton, W. A., Bussey, K., & Sweller, N. (2024). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Digital Communication Empathy Scale (DCES). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 183, 103183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103183
10. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
12. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
13. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
14. Decety, J., & Ickes, W. (Eds.). (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. MIT Press.
15. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
16. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
17. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.
18. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
19. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20. Konrath, S. H., O'Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377395
21. Leng, G., Feng, S., Yao, J., & Jiang, T. (2020). The relationship between empathy and online prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of moral identity and social self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 575053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575053
22. Lysenstøen, C. K., Stenseng, F., Lurie, L., & Frick, P. J. (2021). Is social media use related to prosocial behavior? A cross-lagged panel study with self-perceptions of social media use. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 579347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579347
23. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
24. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1996). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.84
25. Malakcıoğlu, C. (2022). Empathy Assessment Scale. Northern Clinics of Istanbul, 9(4), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2022.55649
26. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
27. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
28. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
29. Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438
30. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
31. Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(11), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0445
32. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
33. Terry, C., & Cain, J. (2016). The emerging issue of digital empathy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(4), Article 58. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80458
34. Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Decreases in psychological well-being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone technology. Emotion, 18(6), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000403
35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
36. Vossen, H. G. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Development of the Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (AMES). Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.040
37. Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Do social media foster or curtail adolescents' empathy? A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.019
38. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
39. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
40. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127