Help me with a quantitative/ empirical methodology with this Research Topic of The Impact of social media

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Help me with a quantitative/ empirical methodology with this Research Topic of

The Impact of social media on students' academic performance. I am looking at using internet use and problematic addiction theory.

Participants = Male and females, Undergraduates, graduates students etc

Demography= Winston Salem Institutes and may be Duke University too.

Measure social media use, time management, self esteem and academic achievement all with validatedmeasures.

Model yours on the example and should include separate sections for Participants, procedures, design, measures.

A sample is posted here for use/reference:

Method ExampleSurvey

Method

This investigation was part of a larger study on parental attitudes towards media use for their children. A survey was administered to a sample of parents of children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years. The questionnaire asked about, among other things, demographics, child media usage, motives for allowing their children to use electronic media, parental reporting of their child's personality characteristics and social skills, and beliefs about educational and entertainment media.

Participants

Parents of children 6 months to 5 years of age were recruited in several ways, including from day care centers in the southeastern United States, organized parent groups in California, and online snowball sampling in which a link to the online version of the survey was sent to a number of parents who then forwarded the link to others. Participants who completed the survey were entered to win a week of free childcare or a $200 dollar gift card to an online retailer. A total of 199 printed and digital surveys were returned to the researchers. After discarding 31 incomplete surveys, 168 completed surveys remained.

The sample of parents consisted primarily of mothers (82%), and 93% were in two- parent households. The parents were generally very well educated, with 39% of Parent 1 and 49% of Parent 2 having some college or a college degree and 62% of Parent 1 and 49% of Parent 2 having some graduate school or a graduate degree.

Of the children, 52% were male, and their average age was 31.41 (SD = 20.61) months, or just slightly over 2.5 years of age. Approximately half were only children (51%), 38% had one sibling, and 10% had more than one sibling.

Procedure

A daycare center in the southeastern United States was approached prior to the beginning of data collection and asked to allow a researcher to hand out paper surveys to parents. Parents completed the surveys at the daycare center and returned them to the researcher. Upon completion of the survey, parents were entered into a drawing for a free week of childcare at the center. In addition, the survey was entered into an online survey-hosting tool. Using a snowball sampling method, the survey link was sent to the listserv of a community-based parents group with the request that it be further passed along to other parents who might be interested. Finally, the survey link was also posted on social networking sites in an effort to get a broader range of respondents. In the recruitment email and recruitment statement on the social networking sites, parents were told that they would be entered into a drawing to win an online gift card should they wish to participate.

Upon clicking the link embedded in the recruitment email, respondents were directed to an informed consent form. After agreeing to participate, respondents were directed to the first page of the survey. Upon completing the survey, participants were asked to record their email so they could be contacted in case they won the drawing. This email address was kept separate from the survey responses. Once data collection was closed, researchers selected one email address from the daycare center and one from the online survey as the raffle winners.

Participants were given one of two versions of the survey. The first version asked the parent to think about their child who was 6 months to 5 years in age and whose birthday occurred most recently. The second version asked the parent to think about their child in this age range whose birthday would occur next. This design element was included to ensure that the returned surveys were representative of the entire age range of interest and was not biased toward younger or older children in that range.

Measures

Demographics. The survey began with questions regarding the participant's gender, their child's birth date (to determine age), child's gender, number of younger and older siblings, and number of parents residing in the home. Each parent's level of education was then recorded (some high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, some graduate school, graduate degree.)

Current media exposure. Children's daily exposure to a variety of media was assessed with a measure adapted from results of a large scale qualitative study examining child media use (Rideout, Vandewater, & Wartella, 2003). This measure asked parents to think about the last day their child followed their normal routine and report the extent to which their child consumed a variety of media. Response options ranged from zero minutes to over two hours, broken into intervals of 15 and 30 minutes. We asked about child exposure to television, DVDs, educational programs, books, video games, computer games (both educational and entertainment), Internet use for non-games, and educational electronic toys (e.g., Leap Frog). These categories were not intended to be mutually exclusive, and offered parents a wide array of possible activities to consider.

Several variables were constructed based on these measures, some of which were categorized based on media content and some on the type of medium. In terms of content, child exposure to non-educational media included 6 items: TV, DVDs, videogames, handhelds, computer games, and Internet use (M= 51.02 minutes, SD= 69.08). Child exposure to educational media included 3 items: educational programs, educational electronic toys, and educational computer or video games (M= 57.95 minutes, SD= 56.53). In addition, variables were constructed based on medium: screen media (TV, DVDs, educational programs, = .80, M= 58.00, SD= 66.10), books (reading, being read to, and workbook activities; =.83, M= 70.48, SD= 50.19), and computers (videogames, handheld games, computer games, internet, educational computer games; = .89; M= 11.04, SD= 44.15). For the present analyses, amount of screen media time is a key variable for testing H2 and to control for in the remaining analyses.

Parent motives for using media for their children.To assess parents' motives for using preschool-directed media with their children, 15 Likert items were created based on the parental motives identified by Rideout and Hamel (2006). Because the study was qualitative, specific dimensions were not statistically identified. However, Rideout and Hamel, (2006) discussed the following motives: education, help the parent relax, help the child relax, child's enjoyment, and reward the child. Three additional items were included to assess parents using media to bond with their child. Two items were also included to measure use based on incidental reasons (e.g., it was on), but as this is not an intentional use, it was not included in the analyses. An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded 5 dimensions with eigenvalues greater than 1. Five of the expected factors emerged clearly, though the "spend time together" items did not load as clearly onto a single factor. Given their conceptual distinctiveness and adequate reliability for each, the original six motives were retained.

The emergent dimensions were each based on 3 items and are as follows:to learn (e.g., "so they can learn something", "because it is educational"; = .93, M = 4.43, SD = 1.59); parent time to themselves(e.g., "to help alleviate my stress", "to allow myself some free time"; = .80, M = 4.25, SD = 1.48); help child relax (e.g. "to help my child relax"; "to give them some down time"; = .81, M= 4.04, SD = 2.07), reward the child, ("as a reward for my child's good behavior", "only if they are well behaved,"; = .90, M = 3.33, SD = 1.62); child enjoyment (e.g., "because they like it"; "so they can watch their favorite show"; = .77, M = 4.51, SD = 1.39); and to bond with their child(e.g., "because it's something we can do together", "so I can spend time with my child"; = .79, M = 3.60, SD = 1.51).

Child social characteristics. The children's social characteristics were measured using a shortened version of the Parental Evaluation of Children's Creativity scale (Runco, et al., 1993).Using a 1 to 7 Likert-type scale anchored by rarely and extremely, parents were asked to indicate how often, or to what degree, their child was: curious, awkward, inventive, dull, impulsive, self-confident, and imaginative. A factor analysis revealed three unique qualities: creative (4 items, = .77, M =, SD = 1.39), awkward/dull (2 items; r = .49, p < .001), and high energy (2 items - impulsive, curious; r = .25, p = .002).Self-confident was retained as a single item measure.

Child social skills were measured using the 13-item preschool Social Skills Rating System (SSRS-P) for parents (Gresham & Elliot, 1990), a measure found to have high internal reliability in previous research (Shahim, 1999) and to possess convergent validity with other measures of social competence (Van der Oord, et al., 2005). In this study, parents were asked how often their child engaged in a number of behaviors, such as attempting tasks without help, initiating conversations, participating in groups, volunteering help, compromising, and making friends. Responses were measured using a 1 to 7 scale anchored by rarely and extremely. Eight items combined to form a reliable index ( = .91, M= 4.95, SD= 1.43). Five items were dropped because they harmed reliability, such as "answers phone correctly," perhaps due to the number of infants in this particular sample

Parent beliefs about educational and entertainment media. Parental beliefs toward educational and entertainment media were measured with a 9-item version of the Parent Play Beliefs Scale (PPBS; Fogle & Mendez, 2006) adapted for educational and entertainment media by replacing "play" with the target media term. Answers were reported on 7-point Likert scales. For educational electronic media, a factor analysis revealed two belief dimensions: learning (e.g., "Educational electronic media can improve my child's language and communication skills", 6 items; = .93) and fun (e.g., "Using educational electronic media is a fun activity for my child"; 3 items; = .89). The same two dimensions emerged for entertainment media = .97 and = .95 respectively.

Measures Example

Measures

Survey items were constructed based on two theoretical approaches, reflecting mediation research and TPB, although given differences in typical TPB contexts, exact measures from TBB were not utilized. Given our interest in two different samples, means for each measure can be found in table 1. Additionally, all items were measured on a 1-5 Likert-scale anchored by "do not agree at all" and "completely agree", except where otherwise noted.

Parent attitudes.Three items were used to assess parents' attitudes toward their adolescents' use of social media. Sample items include "I believe social media are good for my child" and "I approve of social media for my child"( (Netherlands)= .73; (US)= .78). Additionally, three items were used to assess parents' attitudes toward controlling their adolescents' social media use. Sample items include "I think it's a good idea to control my child's social media use" and "I think I should control what my child does on social media"( (Netherlands)= .92; (US) = .90).

Parent perceived subjective norms.Parents were asked to respond to three items regarding their perceived subjective norms to allow their adolescent to use social media and three items regarding their perceived subjective norms to control their adolescents' social media use. For norms regarding adolescent social media use, sample items include "Most of my friends and family with kids the age of mine approve of social media for their children" and "Most of my friends and family with kids the age of mine think social media is just for fun for their children" ( (Netherlands)= .79; (US)= .73). For perceived norms regarding controlling social media use, one item did not have satisfactory inter-item correlations with the other items in both samples and was removed from further analysis. The remaining two items were "Most of my friends and family with kids the age of mine control their children's use of social media" and "My friends and family with kids the age of mine think it's smart to keep track of what kids are doing on social media". These two items were highly correlated in both the Dutch (r (128) = .52, p< .001) and American samples (r(86) = .42, p< .001).

Parent perceived behavioral control.As above, parents were asked three items regarding their perceived behavioral control to allow their adolescent to use social media and three items regarding their perceived behavioral control to control their adolescents' social media use. For perceived control over their adolescents' social media use, sample items include "I can easily find out what my child is doing on social media" and "It's hard to know how much time my child is spending on social media"( (Netherlands)= .76; (US)= .85). For perceived control over limiting their adolescents' social media use, sample items include "I find it easy to limit my child's behavior regarding social media" and "I have the technological skill to keep track of my child's social media activities"( (Netherlands)= .71; (US) = .81).

Parent worry about adolescent social media use.Three items were used to measure the extent to which parents worry about their adolescents' social media use. One item did not have a satisfactory inter-item correlation with the other items for both the Dutch and American samples and was therefore dropped from analysis. The remaining two items were "I spend time worrying about what things that can happen to my child when he/she uses social media" and "I worry about what my child does on social media". These two items were highly correlated in both the Dutch (r (138) = .57, p< .001) and American samples (r(85) = .60, p< .001).

Parent social media mediation styles. Parents were asked to answer items regarding the ways in which they mediated their adolescents' social media use. Three scales, each with 5 items, were adapted to measure the three different television mediation strategies discussed by Valkenburg et al. (1999): active mediation, restrictive mediation, and co-use. Only minor adaptations to the items' wording were made because the goal of the project was to assess parent mediation of SNS and not to validate a new scale per se. In the scale itself, active mediation sample items include "How often do you discuss the benefits and problems of social media with your child?" (1 = never, 5 = always; (Netherlands)= .78; (US)= .90). For restrictive mediation, sample items include "How often do you limit what your child can post or say on Facebook (or other social media) (1 = never, 5 = always; (Netherlands)= .78; (US)= .81). Finally, for co-using, sample items include "How often do you comment on your own child's social media site such as Facebook?" (1 = never, 5 = always; (Netherlands)= .88; (US)= .90).

please I am expecting a proposed methodology , must be detailed enough, thank you.