SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gençlik Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 37

Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Gamer Identity Scale in the Turkish Population

Dijital Oyuncu Kimliği Ölçeği’nin Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Türk Popülasyonuna Göre İncelenmesi

Orçun Keçeci(OSMANİYE KORKUT ATA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1909-409X
Pages
103–123
Publication Date
2025-12-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Consequently, the Turkish version of the scale was found to be psychometrically valid and reliable and is considered a suitable tool for use in the Turkish population.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Playing digital games is one of the most common leisure activities of the modern era.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The current study aims to adapt the Gamer Identity Scale developed by Yim et al. (2023) into Turkish and evaluate its validity and reliability for the Turkish population.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, the Turkish version of the scale was found to be psychometrically valid and reliable and is considered a suitable tool for use in the Turkish population.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dijital oyun · Espor · Kimlik

Abstract

Playing digital games is one of the most common leisure activities of the modern era. However, gamers’ perspectives on digital games differ, and the gamer identities they represent within the universe vary accordingly. The current study aims to adapt the Gamer Identity Scale developed by Yim et al. (2023) into Turkish and evaluate its validity and reliability for the Turkish population. The study population consists of individuals in Turkey who play digital games. Participants were reached using a convenience sampling method, with 240 participants in the pilot study and 388 participants in the final study. During data analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency analysis were conducted to determine the scale’s suitability for the Turkish population. While the original scale consisted of nine items and a unidimensional structure, the factor analysis of the Turkish version identified two distinct dimensions: Individual Identity and Social Identity. Individual identity encompasses players’ personal achievements, self-efficacy perceptions, and individual experiences within games, whereas social identity relates to community belonging, social interactions, and collaboration within gaming communities. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the individual and social aspects of digital gaming behaviors and demonstrate the applicability of the scale in different cultural contexts. Consequently, the Turkish version of the scale was found to be psychometrically valid and reliable and is considered a suitable tool for use in the Turkish population.

Özet

Dijital oyun oynamak, modern dönemin en yaygın boş zaman uğraşlarından biridir. Ancak oyuncuların dijital oyunlara bakış açısı birbirinden farklı olup evren içerisinde temsil ettikleri oyunculuk kimliği çeşitlilik göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, Yim vd. (2023) tarafından geliştirilen Dijital Oyuncu Kimliği Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve Türk popülasyonu için geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğinin değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın evreni Türkiye’de dijital oyun oynayan bireylerden oluşmaktadır. Veri toplamak için katılımcılara kolayda örnekleme yöntemi ile ulaşılmıştır. Örneklem olarak pilot çalışmada 240, nihai çalışmada 388 katılımcı yer almaktadır. Veri analizi aşamasında ölçeği Türk popülasyonuna uygunluğunu belirleyebilmek amacıyla açımlayıcı faktör analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve iç tutarlılık analizi uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin orijinal formu, dokuz madde ve tek boyutlu bir yapıdan oluşmakla birlikte, Türkçe versiyonunun faktör analizi sonuçları, Bireysel Kimlik ve Sosyal Kimlik olmak üzere iki ayrı boyutun varlığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bireysel kimlik, oyuncuların oyun içindeki kişisel başarıları, özyeterlik algıları ve bireysel deneyimlerini içerirken; sosyal kimlik, topluluk aidiyeti, sosyal etkileşimler ve oyun topluluklarındaki iş birliğiyle ilişkilendirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, dijital oyun oynama davranışlarının bireysel ve sosyal yönlerinin daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı sunarken, bu ölçeğin farklı kültürel bağlamlarda uygulanabilir olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonu, psikometrik açıdan geçerli ve güvenilir bulunmuş ve Türk popülasyonunda kullanımı uygun bir araç olarak değerlendirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Keçeci, O. (2025). Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Gamer Identity Scale in the Turkish Population. Gençlik Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 37, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.52528/genclikarastirmalari.1634658

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. Akyıldız-Munusturlar, M. ve Munusturlar, S. (2018). Bilgisayar Oyunları Motivasyon Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(3), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1501/Sporm_0000000377
  2. Anderson, J. C. ve Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(4), 453–460.
  3. Bayrak, A., Demirel, M. ve Demirel, D. H. (2023). Dijital oyun bağımlılığının ciddi boş zaman faaliyeti perspektifinden incelenmesi. Çatalhöyük Uluslararası Turizm ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, (11), 1-11. https://doi. org/10.58455/cutsad.1326110
  4. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. ve 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
  5. Bourdieu, P. (2008). Outline of a theory of practice. S. Seidman ve J. C. Alexander, (Eds.), The new social theory reader (ss. 80-86) içinde. Routledge.
  6. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
  7. Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press.
  8. Consalvo, M. (2009). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. MIT Press.
  9. Cranmer, E. E., Han, D. I. D., van Gisbergen, M. ve Jung, T. (2021). Esports matrix: Structuring the esports research agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106671
  10. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
  11. Cwil, M. ve Howe, W. T. (2020). Cross-cultural analysis of gamer identity: A comparison of the United States and Poland. Simulation & Gaming, 51(6), 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120945735
  12. De Grove, F., Courtois, C. ve Van Looy, J. (2015). How to be a gamer! Exploring personal and social indicators of gamer identity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(3), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12114
  13. Demirel, E. (2022). Sosyolojik bir araştırma nesnesi olarak dijital oyunlar. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25(2), 278-298.
  14. DiFrancisco-Donoghue, J., Balentine, J., Schmidt, G. ve Zwibel, H. (2019). Managing the health of the eSport athlete: An integrated health management model. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 5, e000467. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjsem-2018-000467
  15. Donath, J. S. (2002). Identity and deception in the virtual community. P. Kollock ve M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (ss. 37-68) içinde. Routledge.
  16. Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal component analysis (Quantitative applications in the social sciences series). Sage Publications.
  17. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis (Vol. 68). Norton Publishing.
  18. ESA. (2021). 2021 Essential facts about the video game industry. Entertainment Software Association. https://www. theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-Essential-Facts-About-the-Video-Game-Industry-1.pdf Erişim tarihi: 20/03/2025.
  19. ESA. (2025). 2025 Essential facts about the video game industry. Entertainment Software Association. https:// www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-Essential-Facts-Booklet-05-30-25-RGB.pdf Erişim tarihi: 10/08/2025.
  20. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5. baskı). Sage Publications.
  21. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  22. Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY.
  23. Grooten, J. ve Kowert, R. (2015). Going beyond the game:Development of gamer identities within societal discourse and virtual spaces. Loading. Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 9(14), 70-87.
  24. Hamari, J. ve Sjoblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Research, 27(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085
  25. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F. ve Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.). (2004). Adapting educational and psychological tests for crosscultural assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  26. Heng, S., Zhao, H. ve Wang, M. (2021). In-game social interaction and gaming disorder: a perspective from online social capital. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 468115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.468115
  27. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi. org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  28. Huizinga, J. (1971). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Beacon Press.
  29. Johnson, M. R. ve Woodcock, J. (2019-a). ‘It’s like the gold rush’: The lives and careers of professional video game streamers on Twitch.tv. Information, Communication & Society, 22(3), 336–351. https://doi. org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1386229
  30. Johnson, M. R. ve Woodcock, J. (2019-b). The impacts of live streaming and Twitch. Tv on the video game industry. Media, Culture & Society, 41(5), 670-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718818363
  31. Josselson, R. (1980). Ego development in adolescence. J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (ss.188-210) içinde. Wiley.
  32. Juul, J. (2011). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. MIT press.
  33. Kaye, L. K. (2019). The role of gamer identity on digital gaming outcomes. Design, User Experience, and Usability. Design Philosophy and Theory: 21. HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, (ss. 460-465) içinde. Springer International Publishing.
  34. Kepenek, E. B. (2020). Yeni ve yükselen bir alan: Dijital oyunlar sosyolojisi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23(2), 186- 213.
  35. Kilci, A. K. (2020). Dijital Spor Oyunları Motivasyon Ölçeği (DSOMÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. International Journal of Sport Exercise and Training Sciences-IJSETS, 6(1), 6-18. https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd. 623526
  36. Kivijärvi, M. ve Katila, S. (2022). Becoming a gamer: Performative construction of gendered gamer identities. Games and Culture, 17(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120211042260
  37. Kort-Butler, L. A. (2020). Gamers on gaming: A research note comparing behaviors and beliefs of gamers, video game players, and non-players. Sociological Inquiry, 91(4), 962–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12363
  38. Kowert, R., Griffiths, M. D. ve Oldmeadow, J. A. (2012). Geek or chic? Stereotypes of online gamers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 32(6), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467612469078
  39. Kuss, D. J., Kristensen, A. M. ve Williams, A. J. (2022). To be or not to be a female gamer: A qualitative exploration of female gamer identity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1169. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph19031169
  40. Martoncik, M. (2015). E-sports: Playing just for fun or playing to satisfy life goals? Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.056
  41. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2. baskı). McGraw-Hill.
  42. Osborne, J. W. ve Costello, A. B. (2019). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(1), 11.
  43. Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Identity formation and emotion regulation in digital gaming. U. Ritterfeld, M.Cody ve P. Vorderer (Ed.) Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects (204-218) içinde. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891650
  44. Salen-Tekinbas, K. ve Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. University of Central Florida Press.
  45. Scholz, T. M. (2019). eSports is business: Management in the world of competitive gaming. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-11199-1
  46. Shaw, A. (2010). What is video game culture? Cultural studies and game studies. Games and Culture, 5(4), 403-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412009360414
  47. Shaw, A. (2012). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New Media ve Society, 14(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410394
  48. Stone, J. A. (2019). Self-identification as a “gamer” among college students: Influencing factors and perceived characteristics. New Media ve Society, 21(11–12), 2607–2627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854733
  49. Stotler, M. (2019). Gamers defining gamers: Exploring gamer identities and the subculture from their perspectives. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  50. Stryker, S. ve Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 284- 297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695840
  51. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326. https://doi. org/10.1089/1094931041291295
  52. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7. baskı). Pearson.
  53. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. J. T. Jost ve J. Sidanius (Ed.) Political Psychology (ss. 276-293) içinde. Psychology Press.
  54. Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. MIT press.
  55. Tor, H. ve Irmak, T. Y. (2022). Dijital oyun fenomeninin sosyolojisi. Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 5(12), 1798- 1817. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2022.1160
  56. Turkle, S. (1999). Cyberspace and identity. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 643-648. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655534
  57. Van Looy, J. (2015). Online games characters, avatars, and identity. Games and Virtual Worlds.
  58. Vermeulen, L., Abeele, M. V. ve Van Bauwel, S. (2016). A gendered identity debate in digital game culture. Press Start, 3(1), 1-16.
  59. Wang, J. L., Sheng, J. R. ve Wang, H. Z. (2019). The association between mobile game addiction and depression, social anxiety, and loneliness. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00247
  60. Waterman, A. S. (1985). Identity in adolescence: Processes and contents. Jossey-Bass.
  61. Yim, B., Lepp, A., Dowdell, B. ve Barkley, J. E. (2023). The gamer identity scale: A measure of self concept as a video gamer. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107476
  62. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. ve Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
  63. Grooten, J. ve Kowert, R. (2015). Going beyond the game:Development of gamer identities within societal discourse and virtual spaces. Loading. Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 9(14), 70-87.