Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2

An Alternative to Likert Scale: Emoji

Likert Ölçeklere Bir Alternatif: Emoji

Pages
182–191
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️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)

As a result, it was determined thatthere were no significant differences in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses.However, when correlational analyses were examined, it was observed that as the number of reaction categoriesincreased, the correlation scores of emoji and Likert-type scales decreased.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the twenty-first century, the wide use of emojis in communication platforms has emerged.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Forthis purpose, the 3, 5, and 7-point Likert-type and 3, 5, and 7 emoji response categories Psychological WellBeing Scale was applied to 341 students studying at two state universities located in different regions of Turkey.Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were carried out on the data of theparticipants who answered the six forms with different response categories.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it was determined thatthere were no significant differences in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses.However, when correlational analyses were examined, it was observed that as the number of reaction categoriesincreased, the correlation scores of emoji and Likert-type scales decreased.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the twenty-first century, the wide use of emojis in communication platforms has emerged. As a result, emojishave started to be used in scales. However, there are a limited number of studies in the literature that focuses onthe effect of using emojis instead of Likert-type response categories in scales. Therefore, the focus of this studyis to examine the differences that may arise from using emoji and Likert-type response categories in scales. Forthis purpose, the 3, 5, and 7-point Likert-type and 3, 5, and 7 emoji response categories Psychological WellBeing Scale was applied to 341 students studying at two state universities located in different regions of Turkey.Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were carried out on the data of theparticipants who answered the six forms with different response categories. As a result, it was determined thatthere were no significant differences in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses.However, when correlational analyses were examined, it was observed that as the number of reaction categoriesincreased, the correlation scores of emoji and Likert-type scales decreased.

Özet

Yirmi birinci yüzyılda emojilerin iletişim platformlarında geniş bir kullanım alanı oluşmuştur. Bunun bir sonucu olarak emojiler ölçeklerde kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Ancak ölçeklerde emojilerin Likert tipi tepki kategorilerinin yerine kullanılmasının etkisi üzerine incelenen alanyazında kısıtlı sayıda araştırma olduğu gözlenmiştir. Buradan hareketle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmanın odak noktası ölçeklerde emoji ve Likert tipi tepki kategorileri kullanılmasının ortaya çıkarabileceği farklılıkları incelemektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’nin farklı bölgelerinde yer alan iki devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 341 öğrenciye 3’lü, 5’li ve 7’li puanlanan Likert tipi ve emoji tepki kategorilerinden oluşan Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Tepki kategorileri farklılaşan altı forma cevap veren katılımcıların verileri üzerinde açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile güvenirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuçta açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile güvenirlik analizlerinde anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmadığı belirlenmiştir. Ancak korelasyonel analizler incelendiğinde, özellikle tepki kategori sayısı arttıkça emoji ve Likert tepki kategorilerinden elde edilen verilerin korelasyonunun azaldığını gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

UYSAL, İ., KILIÇ, A. F., KALKAN, B. (2022). An Alternative to Likert Scale: Emoji. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2, 182–191. https://ajindex.com/articles/497170

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: An alternate version. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2), 331-342. doi:10.1177/147078539703900202 Alismail, S., & Zhang, H. (2018, January). The use of emoji in electronic user experience questionnaire: An exploratory case study. Paper presented at 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2018.427 Anderson, L. W. (1991). Attitudes and their measurement (N. Çıkrıkçı, Çev.). Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 24(1), 241-250. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000000734 (Original work published 1988).
  2. Bayat, B. (2014). Uygulamalı sosyal bilim araştırmalarında ölçme, ölçekler ve “Likert” ölçek kurma tekniği. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 1-24. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gaziuiibfd/issue/28309/300829
  3. Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361-379). New York: Guilford. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834 Chen, Z., Lu, X., Shen, S., Ai, W., Liu, X., & Mei, Q. (2017). Through a gender lens: An empirical study of emoji usage over large-scale android users. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05546
  4. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 Danesi, M. (2017). The semiotics of emoji. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Deubler, G., Swaney-Stueve, M., Jepsen, T., & Su-Fern, B. P. (2020). The k-state emoji scale. Journal of Sensory Studies, 35(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1111/joss.12545 Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y Dwyer, E. E. (1993). Attitude scale construction: A review of the literature (Report No. ED359201). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED359201
  5. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, E. W., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Guttman, L. (1941). The quantification of a class of attributes: A theor