You are here:

Examination of a Social-Networking Site Activities Scale (SNSAS) Using Rasch Analysis
article

, , Kent State University, United States ; , Open University of the Netherlands, Netherlands ; , Case Western Reserve University, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 28, Number 4, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties of a social-networking site (SNS) activities scale (SNSAS) using Rasch Analysis. Items were also examined with Rasch Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) across groups of university students (i.e., males and females from the United States [US] and Europe; N = 840). Results from this study found psychometric support for the SNSAS to measure endorsement of activities in which university students engage. European males and females were more likely to endorse actively using SNSs compared to their more passive US counterparts. The SNSAS is a reliable and valid tool in a growing research area where few exist. University administrators worldwide can benefit from understanding the patterns of SNS behavior that may impact students’ socialization, relationship formation, and academic outcomes.

Citation

Alhaythami, H., Karpinski, A., Kirschner, P. & Bolden, E. (2017). Examination of a Social-Networking Site Activities Scale (SNSAS) Using Rasch Analysis. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(4), 371-395. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 17, 2022 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alloway, T.P. & Alloway, R.G. (2012). The impact of engagement with social networking sites (SNSs) on cognitive skills. Computers and Human Behavior, 28, 1748-1754.
  2. Bode, R.K., & Wright, B.D. (1999). Rasch measurement in higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XIV, pp. 287-316). New York: Agathon
  3. Boone, W.J., Staver, J.R., & Yale, M.S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  4. Chapman, C.N., & Lahav, M. (2008, April). International ethnographic observation of social networking sites. Paper presented at CHI ‘08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.
  5. Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
  6. De Ayala, R.J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  7. Fowler, F.J., Jr. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  8. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
  9. Goodman, L.A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 148–170.
  10. Gross, E.F., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S.L. (2002). Internet use and well-being in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 75–90.
  11. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Examination of a Social-Networking Site Activities Scale site use: A comparative study of China and the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 910-921.
  12. Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Duffield, J., Brosnan, M., Crook, C., Durndell, A., Maras, P., Miller, J., Scott, A.J., & Lovatt, P. (2005). Gender, internet identification, and internet anxiety: Correlates of internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 371–376.
  13. Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers& Education, 58(1), 162-171.
  14. Karpinski, A.C., & Duberstein, A. (2009, April). A description of Facebook use and academic performance among undergraduate and graduate students. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  15. Karpinski, A.C., Kirschner, P.A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J.A., & Ochwo, P. (2013). Social-networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United States and European university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1182-1192.
  16. Karpinski, A.C., Kirschner, P.A., Shreffler, A.G., Albert, P.A., & Tomko, C.A. (2016). United States and European students’ social-networking site activities and academic performance. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 6(1), 1-26.
  17. Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
  18. Kemp, S. (2015, January 21). Digital, social& Mobile worldwide in 2015-We Are social UK. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://wearesocial.com/uk/ Special-reports/digital-social-mobile-worldwide-2015.
  19. Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S.M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365-372.
  20. Kirschner, P.A., & Karpinski, A.C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237-1245.
  21. Kuder, G.F., & Richardson, M.W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151-160.
  22. Linacre, J.M. (2012). A user’s guide to Winsteps® Ministep Rasch-model computer programs: Program manual 3.75.0. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com/a/winsteps-manual.pdf.
  23. Linacre, J.M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
  24. Magnuson, M.J., & Dundes, L. (2008). Gender differences in “social portraits” reflected in MySpace profiles. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 239– 241.
  25. Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp.196-216).
  26. Meulders, D., Plasman, R., Rigo, A., & O’Dorchai, S. (2010). Topic report on horizontal and vertical segregation. Meta-analysis of gender and science research. Centre for European Initiatives and Research in the Mediterranean. Retrieved from http://www.genderandscience.org/doc/TR1_Segregation.pdf.
  27. Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 441-444.
  28. Nations, D. (2017, May 30). What is social media? Explaining the big trend. Retrieved from https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-social-media-explainingthe-big-trend-3486616
  29. Nowak, K. (2001, May). Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation. Paper presented at the Presence 2001 Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
  30. Nowak, K., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence, 12(5), 481-494.
  31. Ozer, I., Karpinski, A.C., & Kirschner, P.A. (2014). Across-cultural qualitative examination of social-networking sites and academic performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 873-881.
  32. Peluchette, J. & Karl, K. (2008). Social networking profiles: An examination of student attitudes regarding use and appropriateness of content. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 95-97.
  33. Perrin, A. (2015, October). Social Networking Usage: 2005-2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/2015/Social-Networking-Usage-2005-2015.
  34. Pew Research. (2017, January 11). Social media use by gender. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/chart/social-media-use-by-gender/ Rui, J.R., & Stefanone, M.A. (2013). Strategic image management online. Information, Communication& Society, 16(8), 1286-1305.
  35. Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2002). Meeting people virtually: experiments in shared virtual environments. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 146-171).
  36. Smith, R.M., Schumacker, R.E., & Bush, M.J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2, 6678.
  37. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  38. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  39. Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., Bolle, C.L., Hegner, S.M., Hegner, S., & Kommers, P.A.M. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, selfregulation, age, and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411-420.
  40. Vasalou, A., Joinson, A.N., & Courvoisier, D. (2010). Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of “true commitment” in Facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10), 719-728.
  41. Wright, B.D., Linacre, J.M., Gustafson, J.-E., & Martin-Löf, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
  42. Wright B.D., & Stone M.H. (2004). Making measures. Chicago, IL: The Phaneron Press.
  43. Wright, B.D. & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press. Alhaythami, Karpinski, Kirschner, and Bolden Social-Networking Site Activity Scale (SNSAS) 1. I mainly use my SNS account(s) to build/work on a career network.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References