Turkish adaptation and psychometric validation of a short version of the pragmatic and hedonic quality scale
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to confirm the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Pragmatic and Hedonic Quality Scale and to examine its psychometric properties. To achieve this, linguistic equivalence, confirmatory factor analysis, and validity and reliability analyses were conducted on two independent samples (N₁= 264, N₂ = 469). The results confirmed that the adapted scale retained its three-factor structure, consistent with the original version, with corresponding items forming the same sub-dimensions. The model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. The CFA results indicated that the model fit was within the recommended thresholds in both samples. Reliability analyses indicated that the internal consistency coefficients for the three factors and the whole scale ranged from .71 to .93, and the overall scale showed high reliability. The findings of this study confirm that the Turkish version of the scale preserves the original three-factor structure and demonstrates strong construct validity and reliability.
Keywords
User Experience, MOOCs, Online Learning, Human–Computer Interaction, Scale Adaptation
Supporting Institution
This work was supported by the Atatürk University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit (BAP) under grant number 12289.
Project Number
Ataturk University -BAP under Grant [number 12289]
Ethical Statement
An ethics approval decision was granted at the meeting of the Ethics Committee of Social and Human Sciences, Educational Sciences Subcommittee, Atatürk University, dated 06.03.2023 and numbered 03.
References
- Babar, M. A., Brown, A. W., & Mistrík, I. (2013). Agile software architecture: Aligning agile processes and software architectures. Newnes.
- Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
- Buker, T., Schmitt, T., Miehling, J., & Wartzack, S. (2022). What’s more important for product design – usability or emotionality? An examination of influencing factors. Journal of Engineering Design, 33, 635 - 669. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2022.2142902
- Darin, T., Coelho, B., & Borges, B. (2019, July). Which instrument should I use? Supporting decision-making about the evaluation of user experience. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. Practice and Case Studies: 8th International Conference, DUXU 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019, Proceedings, Part IV 21. Springer, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23535-2_4
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
- Deng, L., Turner, D. E., Gehling, R., & Prince, B. (2010). User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.50
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
- Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, Designs, and Technical Guidelines for Adapting Tests into Multiple Languages and Cultures. In K. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment (pp. 3-38). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611758
- Hassan, H. M., & Galal-Edeen, G. H. (2017). From usability to user experience. In the 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIBMS.2017.8279761
- Hassenzahl, M. (2001). The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304_07