Summary

CM2005 Quantitative Methods of Media and Communication Summary (9.4 scorer)

38 views 5 purchases

Course
Quantitative Methods in Media and Communication (CM2005)

Institution
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)

A summary written by a 9.4 scorer. A comprehensive summary including lecture notes, SPSS notes, practical MCQ from lectures, and my own notes Regarding my own notes , they are mostly some reminders that I put to remind myself on some tricky/confusing parts. I only studied with this summary for my ...

[Show more]

Preview 5 out of 35 pages

View example

Uploaded on November 30, 2022
Number of pages 35
Written in 2021/2022
Type Summary

qmcc
quantitative

Institution
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
Education
International Bachelor of Communication and Media
Course
Quantitative Methods in Media and Communication (CM2005)

CA$7.12

Added

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

QMCC

How can we study for exams:
• Lectures
• Required material for tutorial
• Additional reading (Creswell, Sue & Ritter, mediation hand-out)
• Pallent book: more like guideline, not important for the exam

Week 1 Lecture

RQ, Hypotheses, variables
• Theory: an interrelated set of variables formed into hypothesis that specify the RS
among variables, with the purpose of explaining natural phenomenon
• Theoretical rationale: provides an explanation or prediction about why and how
variable X would influence variable Y

**Quantitative RQs: you have to identify a RS

• Variable: a characteristics or attribute that varies among the people that are being
studied e.g. how many hours they are exposed to media
• Independent variable (IV): those that probably influence or affect outcomes
(treatment, manipulated, antecedent, predictor) e.g.media violence
• Dependent variable (DV): those that are the presumed result of the influence of the
IV (criterion, outcome, effect) e.g. well-being

Hypothesis
• Hypotheses
o tested with statistics
o based on theory
o can be answered by saying true/false
o vs. opinion
• Two types of hypotheses:
o Null hypothesis H0
▪ No difference/ change

, ▪ Never stated, always implied
▪ E.g. Media violence does not influence well-being XX media violence
decrease well-being; human behavior cannot be put in numbers
o Alternative hypothesis H1
▪ Statement of prediction
▪ Actual research hypothesis
▪ E.g. Media violence increase well-being; politicians are arrogant; men
talk way less than women
o The goal of hypothesis testing -> reject one hypothesis and accept the other
• Two types of H1:
o Directional hypothesis
▪ Difference or effect in particular direction
▪ E.g. media violence increases mood
o Non-directional hypothesis
▪ Difference or effect but not in particular direction
▪ Avoid when possible
▪ E.g. media violence influences mood
Variables that influence the rs of IV and DV
• Spurious rs: a rs in which IV and DV seem related, but in fact not (rationally thinking)
• Confounding variables: variables that are not measured but might influence or
explain the observed rs
o E.g. direct rs between chimneys and pregnant women-> More chimneys, the
more pregnant women -> confounding variable: number of citizens which
help explain the rs -> more citizens, the more houses(chimneys), more
pregnant women within a community
o E.g. IV money spent on ice cream, DV people die on drowning, confounding
variable: hot weather
o **Spurious rs (IV and DV are completely unrelated) and confounding rs (IV
and DV are related through a third variable that links them) is not the same
• Control variables: no assumptions about the impact of CV on rs between IV and DV
but just that researchers put them into measure because they think the variables
may potentially influence the DV/ in case the variables cause effects. (usually
demographics such as age).
• Mediator (Mediating/ Intervening variable): stand betweenn the IV and DV and
“mediate” the effects of IV on the DV; tell you how an IV affect the DV
o E.g. Exposure to media violence (IV) > Media entertainment (MV) > Well-
being (DV) -> exposure to media violence can increase well-being if you
are entertained by the movie
o Age can NEVER be a mediator because they cannot be influenced by IVs
• Moderator (Moderating variables): (e.g. gender) affect the rs between the IV and DV,
such that the effect present for one group (e.g. male) but not another (e.g. female);
tell you for whom an IV affect DV
o Moderator variable can be categorical or continuous variable

,Tutorial 1

1. Determine the IV and DV
H1: Girls will show a higher use for social media than boys while boys will play video games
more often
• IV: Gender (**rmb its not girl/boy, they are attributes of gender)
2. Improve the hypotheses
H1: The frequency of being frightened by fantasy characters and events will not decrease
with age
• Will not decrease -> increase (** keep the words simple, avoid ambiguity)
H2: The tendency of being scared by realistic characters and events will increase with age
H3: Girls will show a higher use for social media than boys while boys will play video games
more often
• Separate into two hypotheses: Girls will have higher use of social media; Girls will
have lower video games playing (*keep H1 simple so only 1 IV and DV)
• Or separate the DV into 2: so H1A. How gender affect social media use H1B. How
gender affect video games playing

3. Create a non-directional and directional hypothesis based on the uses and gratification
theory
Q: Name your IV and DV
Do you expect this relation to be the same for all people? Or only for a specific group (do
you have a moderator)? Why?

• Age, Gender: moderator
• IV: Self-posting on social media DV: satisfaction on self-presentation
• Non-directional: The frequency of self-posting on social media affects the
satisfaction on self-presentation
• Directional: the frequency of self-posting on social media increases the satisfaction
on self-presentation.

,Week 2 Lecture

Scale and Quality of scale
• Data are only as good as the instrument that you use to collect them.
• “good science” also included careful operation ( i.e. defining, selecting and refining
of measurements)

Introducing scale
• The variables (i.e. characteristics or attributes that varies among the people that are
being studied) in your research q and hypotheses may be abstract concepts (e.g.
press freedom, materialism, life satisfaction, friendship quality, addiction…)
• Abstract concepts can’t be measured with one question (XX e.g. what is your level of
materialism? How high is your friendship quality?)
• Some characteristics can, for instance gender, sex, education level, ethnicity,
nationality, age etc. (What is your age? What gender do you identify with?)
• To measure abstract concepts => a set of qs/ a scale!!

Scale
• Contain multiple items, being questions or statements, which participants have to
react to
• For each item of a scale, an identical number of answer options should be provided
e.g. 1=no, no at all, 2= no, not really, 3= yes, a little…
• Scale score calculation:
• The scores on separate items (i.e. questions/statements) can be summed or
averaged (depend on how the final variable will be used)
o Sum scores are used when the scale is meant to categorize the
participants: e.g. intelligence, autism, addiction, total number of hours
spent with media.
o Average scale scores are used when to interpret the scale score with the
original answer option e.g. answer 3= yes, a little -> interpretation: the
child would be a little materialistic.
• Some scales combine positive and negative items -> negative items need to be
recoded
o E.g. negative statements (When i look at the world, i don’t see much to be
grateful for)-> a high score (7= strongly agree) indicate ungratefulness
o So need to be recoded in order to measure gratefulness -> reverse the score
so a score of 7 will be converted to 1
o After recoding the negative items, the high score indicates gratefulness

A good operationalization
• Reliable measure ( the measure always measure the same )
• Valid measure (measure what you wanted)
• Objective measure (the measure measured the same when you conduct the study or
when your neighbor does)
• Internal consistency + content validity of the scale can be verified

, When Introduce new scale, following information is needed
• No of items (statement/ questions)
• Content of the items
• No of ans options
• Content of ans options
• Whether some items need to be reversed scored
• The reliability of the scale
• The validity of the scale

Realibity of scale
• Two frequently used indicator:
1. Internal Consistency
o The degree to which the items that make up the scale are all
measuring the same underlying attribute.
o Cronbach’s alpha: statistical measure of internal consistency – show
average correlation among all of the items that make up the scale
▪ Range from 0-1
▪ >0.70= accepted
▪ >0.80= preferable
2. Test-retest reliability (temporal stability)
o Accessed by administering it to the same people at multiple
occasions, and calculating the correlation between the two scores
obtained (logic: same test with same people should have similar
result, the abstract concept should generally states the same)
o Small correlation (r =0.10 to 0.29): low
o Medium correlation (r= 0.30 to 0.49): moderate
o Large correlation (r=0.50 to 0.99): high
o Zero/ negative correlation= poor

Validity of scale
• Refer to the degree to which it measures what it is supposed to measure
1. Content validity= refers to the extent to which the items of the scale are
representative of the entire domain the scale intends to measure.
o In plain language, do the questions capture the concept well?
o Really look into how the items are traced, just evaluate it logically
o Some scales consist of subscales, in such case the items should
capture the designated sub concept!

2. Criterion validity = concerns the relationship between scale scores and some
specified, measurable criterion
o This is usually assessed through a scale’s correlation to other scales
intended to measure the same or a similar concept e.g. new
materialism scale is measured against other known materialism
scales.
o Small correlations (r = 0.10 to 0.29) indicate low validity
o Medium correlations (r = 0.30 to 0.49) indicate moderate validity
o Large correlations (r = 0.50 to 1.00) indicate high validity

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller haunamchan. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for CA$7.12. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

76658 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling