Cognitive-affective maps (CAMs) as measurement tool – Elaboration of quantitative and qualitative test-retest reliability

IF 10.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Wilhelm Gros , Lisa Reuter , Julia Sprich , Dennis Schuldzinski , Julius Fenn , Andrea Kiesel
{"title":"Cognitive-affective maps (CAMs) as measurement tool – Elaboration of quantitative and qualitative test-retest reliability","authors":"Wilhelm Gros ,&nbsp;Lisa Reuter ,&nbsp;Julia Sprich ,&nbsp;Dennis Schuldzinski ,&nbsp;Julius Fenn ,&nbsp;Andrea Kiesel","doi":"10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cognitive-Affective Mapping is a novel mind-map like technique enabling to visually represent existing belief systems or any declarative knowledge and can therefore be used in empirical social research. It can be applied broadly, for example to assess technology acceptance, and the obtained data can be analyzed with quantitative and/or qualitative approaches. Here, we aimed for the first time to assess the data quality of Cognitive-Affective Maps (CAMs). To assess whether the findings of CAM studies are due to measurement errors or due to a real effect, we aimed for a quantitative as well as qualitative test-retest reliability approach. Participants (62 in total) drew a CAM online on their cognitions, emotions and experiences regarding the topic \"Universal Basic Income\" twice with delays of the two measurement time points ranging from 7 to 24 days. Assuming that the evaluation of this topic is driven by values, a stable psychological measurement construct, we presume a high test-retest reliability. Pearson's Product-Moment-Correlations and Spearman's Rank Correlations of CAM parameters show quantitative test-retest reliabilities up to 0.78. Furthermore, two raters identified on average 52 % of repeated or at least semantically similar concepts drawn by the participants between the two measurement time points. Taken together, these findings are promising for a method with this amount of degrees of freedom.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47979,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Society","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 102651"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24001994/pdfft?md5=ca85eff0164ae3b0ef4c40883350790d&pid=1-s2.0-S0160791X24001994-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24001994","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive-Affective Mapping is a novel mind-map like technique enabling to visually represent existing belief systems or any declarative knowledge and can therefore be used in empirical social research. It can be applied broadly, for example to assess technology acceptance, and the obtained data can be analyzed with quantitative and/or qualitative approaches. Here, we aimed for the first time to assess the data quality of Cognitive-Affective Maps (CAMs). To assess whether the findings of CAM studies are due to measurement errors or due to a real effect, we aimed for a quantitative as well as qualitative test-retest reliability approach. Participants (62 in total) drew a CAM online on their cognitions, emotions and experiences regarding the topic "Universal Basic Income" twice with delays of the two measurement time points ranging from 7 to 24 days. Assuming that the evaluation of this topic is driven by values, a stable psychological measurement construct, we presume a high test-retest reliability. Pearson's Product-Moment-Correlations and Spearman's Rank Correlations of CAM parameters show quantitative test-retest reliabilities up to 0.78. Furthermore, two raters identified on average 52 % of repeated or at least semantically similar concepts drawn by the participants between the two measurement time points. Taken together, these findings are promising for a method with this amount of degrees of freedom.

作为测量工具的认知-情感地图(CAM)--定量和定性测试-重测可靠性的阐述
认知-情感图谱是一种类似思维导图的新技术,能够直观地表示现有的信念系统或任何陈述性知识,因此可用于实证社会研究。它的应用范围很广,例如可用于评估技术接受度,获得的数据可通过定量和/或定性方法进行分析。在此,我们首次对认知-情感地图(CAM)的数据质量进行了评估。为了评估认知-情感地图研究的结果是由于测量误差还是由于实际效果,我们采用了定量和定性的测试-再测试可靠性方法。参与者(共 62 人)两次在线绘制了他们对 "全民基本收入 "这一主题的认知、情感和体验的 CAM 图,两次测量时间点的延迟时间从 7 天到 24 天不等。假设对这一主题的评价是由价值观这一稳定的心理测量结构驱动的,我们推测其测试-再测可靠性较高。CAM 参数的皮尔逊乘积-瞬间相关性和斯皮尔曼等级相关性显示,定量测试-重复测试的可靠性高达 0.78。此外,在两个测量时间点之间,两名评分员平均能识别出 52% 的重复概念或至少语义相似的概念。综合来看,这些结果对于这种自由度较高的方法来说是很有前景的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.90
自引率
14.10%
发文量
316
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Technology in Society is a global journal dedicated to fostering discourse at the crossroads of technological change and the social, economic, business, and philosophical transformation of our world. The journal aims to provide scholarly contributions that empower decision-makers to thoughtfully and intentionally navigate the decisions shaping this dynamic landscape. A common thread across these fields is the role of technology in society, influencing economic, political, and cultural dynamics. Scholarly work in Technology in Society delves into the social forces shaping technological decisions and the societal choices regarding technology use. This encompasses scholarly and theoretical approaches (history and philosophy of science and technology, technology forecasting, economic growth, and policy, ethics), applied approaches (business innovation, technology management, legal and engineering), and developmental perspectives (technology transfer, technology assessment, and economic development). Detailed information about the journal's aims and scope on specific topics can be found in Technology in Society Briefings, accessible via our Special Issues and Article Collections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信