1
Q
Title page
A
- My name is Gitanjali Sharma
- Title of our research is: Maintaining contact with family via social media: An analysis of frequency of contact between immediate family members
2
Q
Introduction
Aim
A
- The aim of the study is to produce a valid and reliable scale that measures the frequency of contact of immediate families that occurs via social media platforms.
3
Q
Introduction
Definition of our construct
A
- Frequency of contact is defined as the number of times immediate families use social media applications to contact each other
4
Q
Introduction
Previous scales
A
- Previous scales often produce a broad frequency of family contact score that includes different modes of communication
- For example Nyguen’s scale, the participants were asked ‘How often do you email, talk, write or talk on the telephone with your family’
5
Q
Introduction
Rationale
A
- However, there is a lack of these scales that specifically measure frequency of family contact that takes place over social media platforms.
- Therefore this study aims to do just this.
6
Q
Methods
Participants
Sample
A
- After removing some participants due to incompletely survey data, it resulted in the final sample of 36 participants
7
Q
Methods
Participants
Sample
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
A
- Participants were recruited if they:
- A) have immediate family members
- AND
- B)They were 18 and over.
- Participants were excluded if they do not follow this inclusion criteria
8
Q
Methods
Participant Table
A
- From this table that shows the demographic information of the participants
- The key characteristics of the sample was that 100% were students with an age range of 19-21. Majoirty of them were white and were female.
*
9
Q
Methods
Frequency of contact scale
Content validity
A
- Content validity was established through previous qualiative data that I collected from semi-structured interviews.
10
Q
Methods
Frequency of contact scale
Frequent contact
A
- At the top of our self-report scale, the participants were informed that contacting family more than 3 times a week is considered frequent contact
11
Q
Methods
Frequency of contact scale
Scale details
A
- The scale consisted of 6 statements relating to frequent contact on a 5-point Likert scale
- 1 meaning they strongly disagre
- 5 meant they strongly agreee
12
Q
Methods
Frequency of contact scale
Example
A
- Example of statements we used in the scale was
- Item 3: ‘Time zone differences affected the frequency of contact with family via social media platforms’
- We considered that this item may be reversed scored since it is negatively worded.
13
Q
Methods
Average Weekly Time Spent on Social Media -> Validation Scale
Intro - chosen to validate
A
- The average weekly time spent on social media scale was chosen to validate against our frequency of contact scale
14
Q
Method
Average Weekly Time Spent on Social Media
Reason why we chose
A
The reason why we chosen this scale was because research shown that sending messages through social media was the most popular method amongst young adults to communicate with their family and friends
15
Q
- Method
- Average Weekly Time Spent on Social Media
- Scale details
A
- Self report scale
- Items on 3 point scale in which 1 represents spending less than 6 hours on social media weekly whereas 3 means spending more than 15 hours.
16
Q
Methods
Procedure
A
- This online survey was made using Qualtrics
- The participants first filled in an information sheet, generated a unique code, filled in their demographic information, frequency of contact scale , validation scale and then was debriefed about the study
17
Q
Results
Inital statements
SPSS
Item 3
A
- All data analysis was conducted using SPSS
- Item 3 was reversed scored
18
Q
Results
Descriptive analysis
A
- Descriptive analysis was conducted to check the range of response per item in our scale.
- The analysis showed that all the scales had huge variability in response from 1-5.
- Therefore, no items were removed.
19
Q
Results
Item Analysis
A
- An item analysis was conducted to test the internal consistency of the scale
- This produced a Cronbach alpha of 0.825, which shows good evidence of internal consistency of our scale.
20
Q
Results
Spilt-half reliability
A
- A spilt-half reliability produced a Guttman-Spilt Half Coefficent of 0.763 which shows evidence of acceptable spilt-half reliability
- This means that two parallel forms of our scale can be used if necessary
21
Q
- Results
Criterion Validity
A
- For testing criterion validity by using pearson’s correlation coefficient, it showed that there was no significant relationship between the total scores of our validation score and the frequency of contact scale.
22
Q
Discussion
Aim + Findings
A
- •The results partially supported the aims of the study was reliable but not valid – showing that average time spent on social media construct is not related to frequency of contact construct.
23
Q
Discussion
Limitation
A
- •This limitation can be explained with literature as it shows that majority of individuals use social media for a wide variety of function, not just for communication (which was implied in our study) , such as information seeking and entertainment. (Whiting & Williams, 2013).
24
Q
Discussion
Future research
A
- •An idea for future research if the scale should be valid is answering this research question on how has frequency of family contact has been affected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- There has been a study by Van Tilburg et al. (2021) that investigated frequent contact during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to family and friends, but there has not been a study that investigates the frequency of contact before and during the pandemic in relation to their family members.
PSY2022 Presentation
flashcards
Decks in class (1)
# Cards
