MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896474292 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n5p130

Digital Educational Game Usage Scale: Adapting to Turkish, Validity and Reliability Study

2018· article· en· W2896474292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Okan SARIGÖZ, Yavuz Bolat, Selçuk Alkan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishCronbach's alphaScale (ratio)PsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisTest (biology)Exploratory factor analysisMathematics educationLikert scaleReliability (semiconductor)ValidityCorrelationStatisticsPsychometricsMathematicsDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingLinguisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to adapt Digital Educational Games Usage Scale (DEGUS) that was developed byBonanno & Kommers (2008) to Turkish with the companion of a group of university students studying in departmentof English Teaching. In order for scale items to be the same in terms of language, firstly the translations of the itemswere carried out both from English to Turkish and Turkish to English, afterwards examining the forms gathered fromthe students, significant and positive correlations were detected among the data. Exploratory and confirmatory factoranalyses revealed that the scale had four dimensions. In item total correlation calculation of the scale it was observedthat all the items were above .40, item factor loads varied between .51 and .68, Cronbach Alpha internal consistencycoefficient was .78 and test retest correlation was .88. Significant relations were in the calculations regarding thecorrelation analyses of the scale.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207