skip to main content
10.1145/2930674.2930719acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesidcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Five Degrees of Happiness: Effective Smiley Face Likert Scales for Evaluating with Children

Published:21 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on achieving optimal responses through supporting children's judgements, using Smiley Face Likert scales as a rating scale for quantitative questions in evaluations. It highlights the need to provide appropriate methods for children to communicate judgements, highlighting that the traditional Smiley Face Likert scale does not provide an appropriate method. The paper outlines a range of studies, identifying that to achieve differentiated data and full use of rating scales by children that faces with positive emotions should be used within Smiley Face Likert scales. The proposed rating method, the Five Degrees of Happiness Smiley Face Likert scale, was used in a large-scale summative evaluation of a Serious Game resulting in variance within and between children, with all points of the scale used.

References

  1. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. Management and Organization Review 3, 3 (2007), 335--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bell, A. Designing and testing questionnaires for children. Journal of Research in Nursing 12, 5 (2007) 461--469.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Buckleitner, W. The State of Children's Software Evaluation---Yesterday, Today, and in the 21st Century. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual 1999, 1 (1999), 211--220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambers, C. T., & Johnston, C. Developmental differences in children's use of rating scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 27 (2002) 27--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Cole, J. S., Mccormick, A. C., & Gonyea, R. M. Respondent use of straight-lining as a response strategy in education survey research: Prevalence and implications. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (2012) 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Danner, D., Aichholzer, J., & Rammstedt, B. Acquiescence in personality questionnaires: Relevance, domain specificity and stability. Journal of Research in Personality 57, August (2015), 119--130Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dowrick, A., Wootten, A., Murphy, D., & A, C. "We used a validated Questionnaire": What Does This Mean and is it an Accurate Statment in Urologic Research. Urology, 85,6 (2014) 1304--10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Endrass, B., Hall, L., Hume, C., Tazzyman, S., & Andre, E. A Pictorial Interaction Language for Children to Communicate with Cultural Virtual Characters. In 16th International Conference on Human Interaction (2014) 532--543).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Endrass, B., Hall, L., Hume, C., Tazzyman, S., Andre, E., & Aylett, R. (2014). Engaging with virtual characters using a pictorial interaction language. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 531--534) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Guinard, J.X. Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends in Food Science and Technology 11, (2000) 273--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Haddad, S., King, S., Osmond, P., & Heidari, S. Questionnaire design to determine children's thermal sensation, preference and acceptability in the classroom. Proceedings - 28th International PLEA Conference on Sustainable Architecture + Urban Design: Opportunities, Limits and Needs - Towards an Environmentally Responsible Architecture (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, L. and Hume, C. Why Numbers, Invites and Visits are not Enough: Evaluating the User Experience in Social Eco-Systems. SOTICS 2011, The First International Conference on Social Eco-Informatics, (2011) 8--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall, L., Tazzyman, S., Hume, C., Endrass, B., Lim, M-Y., Hofstede, G., Paiva, A., Andre, E., Kappas, A. and Aylett, R. Learning to overcome cultural conflict through engaging with intelligent agents in synthetic cultures. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education: Special Issue on Culturally-Aware Educational Technologies 25, 2 (2015) 291--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall, L., Jones, S., Aylett, R., Hall, M., Tazzyman, S., Paiva, A., & Humphries, L. Serious Game Evaluation as a Metagame. Journal of Interactive Technology and Smart Education. 10, 2 (2013) 130--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Krosnick, J. A.The threat of satisficing in surveys: the shortcuts respondents take in answering questions. Survey Methods Newsletter 20 (2000) 4--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. van Laerhoven, H., van der Zaag-Loonen, H. J., & Derkx, B. H. F. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta paediatrica, 93, 6 (2004) 830--835Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Markopoulos, P., Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S., & Hööysniemi, J. Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco (CA), US. (2008) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Matson, J. L., Neal, D., Fodstad, J. C., Hess, J. a, Mahan, S., & Rivet, T. T. Reliability and validity of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters. Behavior modification 34, 6 (2010) 539--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. McCambridge, J., De Bruin, M., & Witton, J. The effects of demand characteristics on research participant behaviours in non-laboratory settings: a systematic review. PloS one 7, 6 (2012) e39116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. The use of likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 39 (2014) 369--379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Millen, L., Cobb, S., Patel, H., & Glover, T. Collaborative virtual environment for conducting design sessions with students with autism spectrum conditions. Proc. 9th International Conf. on Disability, Virtual Reality and Assoc. Technologies, (2012) 269--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nijs, L. and Leman, M. Interactive technologies in the instrumental music classroom: A longitudinal study with the Music Paint Machine. Computers and Education 73 (2014) 40--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Oerke, B. and Bogner, F.X. Social Desirability, Environmental Attitudes, and General Ecological Behaviour in Children. International Journal of Science Education 35, 5 (2013) 713--730.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. Children's use of online technologies in Europe: a review of the European evidence base. EU Kids Online, London, UK (2013)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Orne, M.T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American psychologist 17, 11 (1962) 776.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Read, J. MESS Days: Working with Children to Design and Deliver Worthwhile Mobile Experiences. UPA User Experience Magazine, 9, 2 (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Read, J. and Markopoulos, P. Evaluating children's interactive products. Extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2014)1043--1044. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Read, J. and Fine, K. Using survey methods for design and evaluation in child computer interaction. Workshop on Child Computer Interaction: Methodological Research at Interact. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Read, J., MacFarlane, S., & Casey, C. Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children's fun. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children, (2002) 189--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynolds-Keefer, L., Johnson, R., & Carolina, S. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Creating effective questionnaires with pictures. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 16 (2011) 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynolds-Keefer, L., Johnson, R., Dickenson, T., & McFadden, L.Validity issues in the use of pictorial Likert scales. Studies in Learning, Evaluation Innovation and Development 6 (2009) 15--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberto, C. A., Baik, J., Harris, J. L., & Brownell, K. D.Influence of licensed characters on children's taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics 126 (2010) 88--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Hattie, J. A. C. The dangers of extreme positive responses in Likert scales administered to young children. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment 11 (2012) 75--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Salvador-Herranz, G., Perez-Lopez, D., Ortega, M., Soto, E., Alcaliz, M., & Contero, M. Manipulating virtual objects with your hands: A case study on applying desktop Augmented Reality at the primary school. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2013) 31--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sluis, F. Van Der, Dijk, E. M. a G. Van, & Perloy, L. M. Measuring Fun and Enjoyment of Children in a Museum: Evaluating the Smileyometer Study One: Prototype. In Proceding of Measuring (2012) 86--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Tatla. 2014, S.K. The development of the Pediatric Motivation Scale for children in rehabilitation: a pilot study. Retrieved from http://elk.library.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/45920/ubc_2014_spring_tatla_sandeep.pdf?sequence=27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Tourangeau, R. and Rasinkski, K.A. Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin 103 (2008) 299--314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Vannette, D. and Krosnick, J. A comparison of Survey Satisficing and Mindlessness. In The Willey Blackwell Handbook of Mindfullness. (2014) 312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Zaman, B., Vanden Abeele, V., & De Grooff, D. Measuring product liking in preschool children: An evaluation of the Smileyometer and This or That methods. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1 (2013) 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Zaman, B., Vanden Abeele, V., Markopoulos, P., & Marshall, P. Editorial: The evolving field of tangible interaction for children: The challenge of empirical validation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, (2012) 367--378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zarins, B. Are validated questionnaires valid? The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 87, 8 (2005) 1671--1672.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Five Degrees of Happiness: Effective Smiley Face Likert Scales for Evaluating with Children

          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 Conferences
            IDC '16: Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children
            June 2016
            774 pages
            ISBN:9781450343138
            DOI:10.1145/2930674

            Copyright © 2016 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: 21 June 2016

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            IDC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of77submissions,47%Overall Acceptance Rate172of578submissions,30%

            Upcoming Conference

            IDC '24
            Interaction Design and Children
            June 17 - 20, 2024
            Delft , Netherlands

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader