skip to main content
10.1145/3340764.3340766acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmundcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

ATI-S - An Ultra-Short Scale for Assessing Affinity for Technology Interaction in User Studies

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In research and development in general, and in user-centered design (UCD) in particular, study participants have to be representative for the target audience. However, given the voluntary participation in user studies and an ensuing self-selection bias, participants of user studies likely prefer to engage with technology more strongly than the target audience in general (i.e., they have a higher affinity for technology interaction, ATI). Unchecked, this potential bias might lead to products that neglect important user groups or miss valuable market niches. At the same time, participants' time is limited, so assessment of ATI must be economical. Thus, we propose an ultra-short ATI scale derived from the ATI scale by [10]. ATI-S was developed using theoretical considerations and empirical analyses. It provides a sufficiently reliable and valid assessment of ATI for conditions with strict time-constraints, in which the full ATI scale cannot be used.

References

  1. 2010. DIN EN ISO 9241-210. Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion -Teil 210: Prozess zur Gestaltung gebrauchstauglicher interaktiver Systeme. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Christiane Attig and Thomas Franke. 2018. I track, therefore I walk - Exploring the motivational costs of wearing activity trackers in actual users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Christiane Attig, Sebastian Mach, Daniel Wessel, Thomas Franke, Franziska Schmalfuß, and Josef F. Krems. 2018. Technikaffinität als Ressource für die Arbeit in Industrie 4.0. In Innteract Conference 2018 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Constanze Beierlein, Christoph J Kemper, Anastassiya Kovaleva, and Beatrice Rammstedt. 2013. Kurzskala zur Erfassung allgemeiner Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen (ASKU). methoden, daten, analysen 7, 2 (2013), 251--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hanna Beißert, Meike Köhler, Marina Rempel, and Constanze Beierlein. 2014. Eine deutschsprachige Kurzskala zur Messung des Konstrukts Need for Cognition. Die Need for Cognition Kurzskala (NFC-K). Technical Report 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Herbert Bless, Roland F. Fellhauer, Gerd Bohner, and Norbert Schwarz. 1994. Need for cognition: A scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 25 (1994), 147--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. John T. Cacioppo and Richard E. Petty. 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982), 116--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Paul Cairns. 2013. A commentary on short questionnaires for assessing usability. Interacting with Computers 25 (2013), 312--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Thomas J. Dunn, Thom Baguley, and Vivienne Brunsden. 2014. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology 105, 3 (2014), 399--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Thomas Franke, Christiane Attig, and Daniel Wessel. 2018. A Personal Resource for Technology Interaction: Development and Validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 35, 6 (2018), 456--467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. John L. Horn. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica 30 (1965), 179--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ewa Jonkisz, Helfried Moosbrugger, and Holger Brandt. 2012. Planung und Entwicklung von Tests und Fragebogen {Planning and development of tests and questionnaires}. In Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion, Helfried Moosbrugger and Augustin Kelava (Eds.). Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 27--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kurt Lewin. 1939. Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. Amer. J. Sociology 44 (1939), 868--896.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Beatrice Rammstedt and Constanze Beierlein. 2014. Can't we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences 35 (2014), 212--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Beatrice Rammstedt, Karina Koch, Ingwer Borg, and Tanja Reitz. 2004. Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala für die Messung der Big-Five-Persönlichkeitsdimensionen in Umfragen. ZUMA Nachrichten 28, 55 (2004), 5--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeff Sauro and James R. Lewis. 2011. When Designing Usability Questionnaires, Does It Hurt to Be Positive? Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Susanne Schlink and Eva Walther. 2007. Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 38, 3 (2007), 153--161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Alexander Seifert, Anna Schlomann, Christian Rietz, and Hans Rudolf Schelling. 2017. The Use of Mobile Devices for Physical Activity Tracking in Older Adults' Everyday Life. 3 (2017), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tal Yarkoni. 2010. The abbreviation of personality, or how to measure 200 personality scales with 200 items. Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010), 180--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. ATI-S - An Ultra-Short Scale for Assessing Affinity for Technology Interaction in User Studies

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          MuC '19: Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019
          September 2019
          863 pages
          ISBN:9781450371988
          DOI:10.1145/3340764

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 8 September 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader