THE ONLINE DATING INTENSITY SCALE (ODI): VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY OF TURKISH FORM

Öz

The main purpose of the current research is to adapt the Online Dating Intensity Scale (CFAS), developed by Bloom and Taylor (2019) to evaluate the frequency of use of individuals using online dating programs, into Turkish and to conduct reliability and validity studies of the scale. The sample of the research consists of 110 participants who have previously used and/or are currently using any online dating program. Within the scope of the current study, the original form of the scale was translated into Turkish by experts, and the back-translation was made by experts fluent in both languages. For the validity and reliability analyses of the scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was examined for construct validity, and Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient and Composite Reliability (CR) coefficients were examined for reliability analyses. Research findings revealed that the two-factor solution was confirmed in Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In addition, the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient of the scale is 0.92, and the Composite Reliability (CR) coefficients are 0.86 for the attitudes and 0.71 for intensity sub-dimensions. As a result, it was concluded that the scale has very good psychometric properties and allows a valid and reliable assessment of the intensity of online dating experiences in Turkish culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Online Dating Intensity
• Scale Adaptation
• Validity
• Reliability

ÇEVRİMİÇİ FLÖRT YOĞUNLUĞU ÖLÇEĞİ (ÇFYÖ): TÜRKÇE FORMU GEÇERLİLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Mevcut araştırmanın temel amacı, Bloom ve Taylor (2019) tarafından çevrimiçi flört programlarını kullanan bireylerin kullanım sıklığını değerlendirmek amacıyla geliştirilen Çevrimiçi Flört Yoğunluğu Ölçeği (ÇFYÖ)’ni Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışmalarını yürütmektir. Araştırmanın örneklemini daha önce herhangi bir çevrimiçi flört programı kullanmış ve/veya hâlihazırda kullanmakta olan 110 katılımcı oluşturmaktadır. Mevcut çalışma kapsamında ölçeğin orijinal formu, uzmanlar tarafından Türkçeye çevrilmiş olup, geri-çevirisi ise her iki dile de hâkim uzmanlar tarafından yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarında yapı geçerliliği için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), güvenirlik analizleri için ise Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı ve Bileşik Güvenirlik (CR) katsayıları incelenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA)’nde iki faktörlü çözümün doğrulandığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, ölçeğe ilişkin Cronbach Alfa Katsayısının 0.92 olduğu, Bileşik Güvenilirlik (CR) katsayılarının ise; tutum alt boyutu için 0.86; yoğunluk alt boyutu için ise 0.71 olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin oldukça iyi düzeyde psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğu ve Türk kültüründe çevrimiçi flört deneyimlerinin yoğunluğunu geçerli ve güvenirlik bir biçimde değerlendirilebilmesine olanak sağladığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevrimiçi Flört Yoğunluğu
• Ölçek Uyarlama
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Abramova, O., Baumann, A., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2016). Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3858-3867.
2. Anderson, J. C., Ve Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173.
3. Alterovitz, S. S. R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2011). Partner Preferences Across the Life Span: Online Dating by Older Adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(S), 89–95.
4. Aydoğan, B. (2020). Analysis of women’s flirt experience via location-based online dating practices: Tinder and happn. Moment Journal, 7(2), 287–313.
5. Baker, H. G., & Bell, P. R. (1960). Darwin, and after darwin. Evolution, 14(2), 272.
6. Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, Improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika, 50(2), 229-242
7. Bloom, Z. D., & Dillman Taylor, D. (2019). The online dating intensity scale: Exploratory factor analysis in a sample of emerging adults. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 53(1), 1–16.
8. Bonilla-Zorita, G., Griffiths, M. D., & Kuss, D. J. (2020). Online dating and problematic use: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 2245–2278.

9. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & Vanderweele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10135–10140.
10. Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), 7-14.
11. Cöbek, & Ergin. (2021). Swipe me if you can: Cultural and gendered uses of tinder in turkey. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences (IJSHS), 5(3), 11–38.
12. Dinh, R., Gildersleve, P., Blex, C., & Yasseri, T. (2021). Computational courtship understanding the evolution of online dating through large-scale data analysis. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(1), 401–426.
13. Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993–1011.
14. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
15. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating. Psychological Science in The Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
16. Han, S. (2019). The connection between charles darwin’s evolutionary theory of ‘heredity of behaviors’ and the 19th century neuroscience: The influence of neuroscience on darwin’s overcoming of lamarck’s theory of evolution. Korean Journal of Medical History, 28(1), 291–350.
17. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8(4), 393–427.
18. Hogan, B., Li, N., & Dutton, W. H. (2011). A global shift in the social relationships of networked ındividuals: Meeting and dating online comes of age. SSRN Electronic Journal.
19. Huang, S. A., Hancock, J., & Tong, S. T. (2022). Folk theories of online dating: Exploring people’s beliefs about the online dating process and online dating algorithms. Social Media + Society, 8(2), 205630512210895.
20. Jackson, D. L. (2001). Sample size and number of parameter estimates in maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis: A monte carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 205-223.
21. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329–347.
22. Leemann, L., Martelin, T., Koskinen, S., Härkänen, T., & Isola, A. M. (2021). Development and psychometric evaluation of the experiences of social inclusion scale. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 23(3), 400–424.
23. Lingutla, & Kumar. (2022). Evolution of online dating: Analysis of dating preferences, user psychology and pain points in context to indian market. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science.
24. Lodha, P. (2022). The challenges of online dating and digital relationships during COVID-19. Global Bioethics Enquiry Journal, 10(2), 80–86.
25. Lou, L. L., Yan, Z., Nickerson, A., & Mcmorris, R. (2012). An examination of the reciprocal relationship of loneliness and facebook use among first-year college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 105–117.
26. Mazzarotto, M. (2019). Dating in the digital age: A research experiment. Popular Culture Review, 30(2).
27. Özseyhan, C., Badur, B., & N. Darcan, O. (2012). An association rule-based recommendation engine for an online dating site. Communications of the IBIMA, 1–15.
28. Romm-Livermore, C., & Somers, T. (2009). How e-daters behave online. Social Networking Communities and E-Dating Services, 292–313.
29. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.
30. Sprecher, S. (2009). Relationship initiation and formation on the internet. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6–8), 761–782.
31. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates.
32. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
33. Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: the role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351.