Validity and Reliability Study of Parental Mediation for Internet Usage Scale Adolescent and Parent Forms in the Turkish Sample

Abstract

Parental mediation includes parents’ attitudes and behaviors about their child’s media using. Early parental mediation researches have been conducted on television. Nowadays, parental mediation researches concentrate on the Internet. The main purpose of this study is to develop assessment forms that evaluate parental mediation strategies in respect of Internet Usage. In this study, a scale has been developed including parent and adolescent forms, as the strategies used by parents could be examined based on both parents and their children’s self-report. A representative sample consisting of a total of 728 parents participated in the parent form study in Mamak, Ankara (mother n=456; father n=272). A total of 718 adolescents (female n=371; male n=345) aged 11- 14 years old studying 6.-8. grades in a secondary school in Mamak participated in the adolescent form study. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and conformity factor analysis (CFA) were applied for the purpose of testing construct validity of the forms. EFA indicated that a two-factor model had enough fit for parent form and a three-factor model was suggested for adolescent form.  Factors of parent form were named as “control/ restriction” and “active mediation”, factors of adolescent form were named as “control/ restriction”, “active mediation” and “monitoring”. These factors have explained 63.7% and 61.7% variance on parent and adolescent scales, respectively. The results of CFA have revealed appropriateness of the factor structure (Parent form: χ²/sd=2.08, RMSEA= .06, GFI: .91, AGFI: .88, SRMR: .03, NFI: .98, NNFI:.99, CFI:.99; Adolescent form: χ²/sd=2.94, RMSEA= .07, GFI: .88, AGFI: .84, SRMR: .04, NFI: .98, NNFI:.98, CFI:.99). Assessed with Cronbach Alfa internal consistency reliabilities were calculated as .95 for both parent and adolescent forms. Test-retest reliabilities were .87 and .82 for parent and adolescent forms, respectively. These results have pointed out that both forms have the value of use in research on the evaluation of parental mediation on the Internet usage.

Keywords

• Parental mediation,parent,adolescence,scale development

Abstract

Anababa aracılığı anababaların çocuklarının medya kullanımı konusundaki tutum ve davranışlarını içermektedir. Başlarda anababa aracılığı çalışmaları televizyon konusunda yapılmaktaydı. Son yıllarda ise konu hakkındaki çalışmalar İnternet kullanımı üzerine yoğunlaşmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı İnternet kullanımında anababaların izledikleri aracılık stratejilerini değerlendiren ölçme araçlarını geliştirmektir. Anababaların kullandıkları stratejiler, hem anababaların hem de çocuklarının bildirimine dayanarak değerlendirilebileceğinden bu çalışmada anababa ve ergen formları olmak üzere iki araç geliştirilmiştir. Anababa formu çalışmasına Ankara İlinin Mamak İlçesinden 728 anababa katılmıştır (anne n=456; baba n=272). Ergen ölçeği çalışmasına yaşları 11-14 arasında olan Mamak ilçesinde bulunan bir ortaokulun 6-8. sınıflara devam eden toplam 716 ergen (kız n=371; erkek n=345) katılmıştır. Ölçeklerin yapı geçerliğini değerlendirmek üzere Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. AFA sonucunda anababa formuna ilişkin, “Kontrol/kısıtlama” “aktif aracılık” olarak adlandırılan iki faktör ve ergen formuna ilişkin “Kontrol/kısıtlama, “aktif aracılık” ve “izleme” olarak adlandırılan üç faktör belirlenmiştir. Bu faktörler varyansın anababa ve ergen ölçekleri için sırasıyla %63.7’sini ve %61.7’sini açıklamıştır. DFA sonuçları faktör yapısının uygunluğunu desteklemiştir (Anababa formu: χ²/sd=2.08, RMSEA= .06, GFI: .91, AGFI: .88, SRMR: .03, NFI: .98, NNFI:.99, CFI:.99; Ergen formu: χ²/sd=2.94, RMSEA= .07, GFI: .88, AGFI: .84, SRMR: .04, NFI: .98, NNFI:.98, CFI:.99). Cronbach Alfa ile değerlendirilen iç tutarlık güvenirliği anababa ve ergen formlarının ikisi için de .95 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Test-tekrar test güvenirliği Anababa ve Ergen ölçekleri için .87 ve .82’dir. Bu sonuçlar her iki formun İnternet kullanımında anababa aracılığının değerlendirilmesine yönelik araştırmalarda kullanım değerinin olduğuna işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Ana-baba aracılığı,ölçek geliştirme,ergenlik

References

1. Barkin, S., Ip, E., Richardson, I., Klinepeter, S., Finch, S., Krcmar, M. (2006). Parental media mediation styles for children aged 2 to 11 years. Archieves of Pediatrics& Adolescent Medicine, 160, 395-401.
2. Bayraktar, F. (2017). Çevrimiçi Riskler ve Ebeveyn Aracılık Stratejileri: Türkiye’de ve Avrupa’da Yaşayan Türk Kökenli Çocuk/Ergenlerin Karşılaştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim,42, 190, 25-37.
3. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
4. Cabello-Hutt, T., Cabello, P. ve Claro, M. (2017). Online opportunities and risks for children and adolescents: The role of digital skills, age, gender and parental mediation in Brazil. New Media & Society, 1-21.
5. Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Miao, N. F., Chen, P. H., Lee, C. M., Chiang, J. T. ve Pan, Y. C. (2015). The relationship between parental mediation and Internet addiction among adolescents, and the association with cyberbullying and depression. Comprehensive psychiatry, 57, 21-28.
6. Chen, V. H. H. ve Chng, G. S. (2016). Active and restrictive parental mediation over time: Effects on youths’ self-regulatory competencies and impulsivity. Computers & Education, 98, 206-212.
7. Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication theory, 21(4), 323-343.
8. Comrey, A. L., ve Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. NY: Psychology Press.

9. Çokluk Ö., Şekercioğlu G., Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3. Baskı). Pegem akademi, Ankara.
10. Davies, J. J. ve Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children’s media use in families with and without siblings: A family development perspective. Family Relations, 61,410-425.
11. Festl, R. ve Langmeyer, A. N. (2018). The Role of Internet Parenting for the Internet use of Children in Pre-, Primary and Secondary School. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 67, 2, 154-180.
12. Fikkers, M. K., Piotrowski, T. J., Valkenburg, M. P. (2017). A matter of style? Exploring the effects of parental mediation styles on early adolescents media violence exposure and aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 407-415.
13. Fraenkel, R. J. ve Wallen, E. N. (1993). How to design and evaluate Research in Education. Illinois.
14. Gentile, D. A., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reimer, R. A. ve Walsh, D. A. (2012). Do you see what I see? Parent and child reports of parental monitoring of media. Family Relations, 61, 470–487.
15. Glatz, T., Crowe, E. ve Buchanan, C. M. (2018). Internet-specific parental self-efficacy: Developmental differences and links to Internet-specific mediation. Computers in Human Behavior.
16. Gómez, P., Harris, S. K., Barreiro, C., Isorna, M. ve Rial, A. (2017). Profiles of Internet use and parental involvement, and rates of online risks and problematic Internet use among Spanish adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 826-833.
17. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
18. Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisiplinary Journal, 6, 1, 1-55.
19. Kılınç, F. (2017). Çocukların çevrimiçi ortamda karşılaştıkları risk türleri ile aracılık uygulamaları arasındaki ilişki (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Mersin Üniversitesi, Mersin.
20. Kirwil, L. (2009). Parental mediation of children’s internet use in different European countries. Journal of Children and Media, 3, 394-409.
21. Kline, R. B. (2005).Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. N. Y: Guilford Press.
22. Lee, S. J. (2013). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s internet use: Effective for what and for whom?. New Media & Society, 15, 4, 466-481.
23. Lee, C. ve Kim, O. (2017). Predictors of online game addiction among Korean adolescents. Addiction Research & Theory, 25, 1, 58-66.
24. Lenhart, A., Simon, M. ve Graziano, M. (2001). The Internet and education: Findings of the pew Internet & American life Project, Washington.
25. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A. ve Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67, 1, 82-105.
26. Mares, M. L., Stephenson, L., Martins, N. ve Nathanson, A. I. (2018). A house divided: Parental disparity and conflict over media rules predict children's outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 177-188.
27. Nathanson, A.I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children's aggression. Communication Research, 26, 124-143.
28. Nikken, P. ve Schols, M. (2015). How and why parents guide the media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3423–3435.
29. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M. ve Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high-speed family connection: associations between family media use and family connection. Family Relations, 61, 3, 426–440.
30. Pasquier, D., Simões, J. A. ve Kredens, E. (2012). Agents ofmediation and sources of safety awareness: Acomparative overview. (Eds. S.Livingstone,L.Haddon ve A.Görzig), Children, risk and safety on the Internet. Bristol, England: Policy Press.
31. Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G. ve Rideout, V. J. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
32. Sabina, C., Wolak, J. ve Finkelhor, D. (2008). The nature and dynamics of internet pornography exposure for youth. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11, 691–693.
33. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe F. A., Luther, D. C., Adams J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of Coping: Facor Stability Using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Psychological Reports, 62 (3), 763-770.
34. Shin, W.ve Huh, J. (2011). Parental mediation of teenagers’ video game playing: Antecedents and consequences. New Media & Society, 13, 6, 945-962.
35. Shin, W. ve Kang, H. (2016). Adolescents' privacy concerns and information disclosure online: the role of parents and the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 114-123.
36. Sonck, N., Nikken, P. ve de Haan, J. (2013). Determinants of internet mediation. Journal of Children and Media, 7, 96-113.
37. Spada, M. M. (2014). An overview of problematic Internet use. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 1, 3-6.
38. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3, 6, 49-74.
39. Sütçü, S. S. (2017). The reactions of the children towards restrictions on their use of ınformatıon technologies. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13, 2, 301-315.
40. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivarite statistics, MA: Allyn ve Bacon.
41. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
42. Treuer, T., Fabian, Z. ve Füredi, J. (2001). Internet addiction associated with features of impulse control disorder: is it a real psychiatric disorder? Journal of Affective Disorders, 66 2-3, 283.
43. TÜİK (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu) (2017). Hane Halkı Bilişim Teknolojileri Kullanım Araştırması. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1028 İnternet adresinden 28.08.2017 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
44. Valkenburg, P.M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A.L. ve Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social coviewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43,52
45. Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J., Hermanns, J., ve de Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and validating the Perceived Parental Media Mediation Scale: a self- determination perspective. Human Communication Research, 39, 4, 445-469.
46. Vaterlaus, J. M., Beckert, T. E., Tulane, S. ve Bird, C. V. (2014). “They always ask what I'm doing and who I'm talking to”: Parental mediation of adolescent interactive technology use. Marriage & Family Review, 50, 691-713.
47. Wang, R., Bianchi, S. M. ve Raley, S. B. (2005). Teenagers’ Internet use and family rules: A research note. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1249-1258.
48. Warren, R. (2001). In words and deeds: Parental involvement and mediation of children's television viewing. Journal of Family Communication, 1, 211-231.
49. Widyanto, L. ve McMurran, M. (2004). The psychometric properties of the internet addiction test. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7 (4), 443-450.
50. Williams, A. L. ve Merten, M. J. (2011). iFamily: Internet and social media technology in the family context. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40, 150–170.