Dijital Bölünmenin Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve MANOVA ile Ölçülmesi: Türkiye Örneği
Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiyede’ki bireylerin Internet kullanım yetkinliklerinin kaç faktörde tanımlanabileceğini Confirmatory Factor Analysis ile araştırmak ve bu faktörleri belirleyen indikatörlerin bireylerin cinsiyet, yaş ve eğitim düzeylerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını yani bir digital divide olup olmadığını Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) yöntemi ile analiz etmektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye İstatistik kurumunun IT Usage 2016 verileri kullanılmıştır. Anketin tüm verileri kategoriktir. Ancak Confirmatory Faktor Analysis ve MANOVA continous variables uygulanan yöntemler olduğundan öncelikle değişkenler Optimal Scaling yöntemi ile quantified variable lara dönüştürülmüştür. Confirmatory Factor Analysis ve MANOVA uygulanmadan önce multivariate normality ve equality of variance-covariance matrices varsayımlarının geçerliliği araştırılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre İnternet kulllanım yetkinliklerinin; Kişisel Amaçla İnternette Yapılan Faaliyetler, E-Learning Kullanımı, E-Devlet Kullanımı ve Yazılım ile İlgili Faaliyetler olmak üzere dört faktörden oluştuğu görülmüştür. MANOVA sonuçlarına göre bu faktörler cinsiyete, yaşa ve eğitime bağlı olarak anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaşmaktadır. Buna göre Türkiye’deki bireyler arasında 2. ve 3. düzeyde digital dividenin olduğu saptanmıştır.
Measuring Digital Divide by Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and MANOVA : A Case of Turkey
The aim of the study is to determine the factors of individuals’ skills with regard to internet usage in Turkey by Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and to analyze the factor indicators in order to clarify if they vary by gender, age and education level, i.e. if a digital divide is in question, by Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) method. For that purpose, the data on “IT Usage – 2016” of Turkish Statistical Institute was selected as baseline. All data used in this study is categorical. Though, since Confirmatory Factor Analysis and MANOVA are methods using continuous variables, firstly, the variables were transferred to quantified variables by Optimal Scaling method, and before employing Confirmatory Factor Analysis and MANOVA methods, the validity of both multivariate normality and equality of variance-covariance matrices hypotheses was checked. The results obtained showed that the skill with regard to internet usage consists of four factors: personal intended internet activities, e-learning, e-government services, and software related activities. According to the MANOVA results, these factors significantly vary by gender, age, and education level, and thus, there’s a second and a third level digital divide between individuals in Turkey.
___
- Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide—A
typology of Internet users in Europe. International journal of human-computer studies,
69(3), 123-138.
- Çilan, Ç. A., Bolat, B. A., & Coşkun, E. (2009). Analyzing digital divide within and between member
and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 98-
105.
- Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Multivariate data analysis. New York; J. Wiley.
- Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Bacao, F. (2012). Digital divide across the European Union. Information
& Management, 49(6), 278-291.
- Cruz-Jesus, F., Vicente, M. R., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). The education-related digital divide: An
analysis for the EU-28. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 72-82.
- Deniz, E., Bozdogan, H., & Katragadda, S. (2011). Structural equation modeling (SEM) of categorical
and mixed-data using the Novel Gifi transformations and information complexity (ICOMP)
criterion. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 40(1), 86-123.
- Wu, T. F., Chen, M. C., Yeh, Y. M., Wang, H. P., & Chang, S. C. H. (2014). Is digital divide an issue for
students with learning disabilities?. Computers in human behavior, 39, 112-117.
- Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy
needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3-10. ISO 690
- Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic
government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information
Quarterly, 26(1), 89-97.
- Gifi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis
(Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
- Helsper, E. J., & Alexander, J. V. (2016). Measuring Types of Internet Use. From Digital Skills to
Tangible Outcomes project report. Oxford: London School of Economics, University of
Twente, Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved July, 25, 2016.
- https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications
- The Economist, Intelligence Unit. The Inclusive Internet Index: Bridging Digital Divides. (2017)
https://theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com/assets/external/downloads/3i-bridging-digitaldivides.pdf Accessed 18 Feb 2018
- International Telecommunication Union, Measuring The Information Society Report 2013
- Johnson, R. A., Wichern D.W. (1998), Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 4th edition, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey
- Kline, R. B. (2005), Principals and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Second Edition, Guilford
Publication Inc.
- Kline R.B.(2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edition,The Guilford
Press
- Meulman J.J. (1998) Optimal Scaling Methods For Multivariate Categorical Data Analysis, SPSS
White Paper, Chicago,
- Mumporeze, N., & Prieler, M. (2017). Gender digital divide in Rwanda: A qualitative analysis of
socioeconomic factors. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1285-1293.
- Okunola, O. M., Rowley, J., & Johnson, F. (2017). The multi-dimensional digital divide: Perspectives
from an e-government portal in Nigeria. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 329-339.
- Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and
personal computer Internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721-744.
- Puspitasari, L., & Ishii, K. (2016). Digital divides and mobile Internet in Indonesia: impact of
smartphones. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 472-483.
- Riggins, F. J., & Dewan, S. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal
of the Association for information systems, 6(12), 13.
- Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and
outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and
informatics.
- Tacq,J(1998), Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social Science Research: From Problem to
Analysis, Sage Publication, London
- Turkish Statistical Institute IT Usage Survey 2016
- Zhu, S. (2011, May). A two-level theoretical model on digital divide in individual ecommerce
utilization in China. In Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), 2011 IEEE 3rd
International Conference on (pp. 92-96). IEEE.