Show simple item record

dc.creatorLee, S.
dc.creatorMa, S.
dc.creatorMeng, J.
dc.creatorZhuang, J.
dc.creatorPeng, T.-Q.
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-26T18:58:47Z
dc.date.available2022-09-26T18:58:47Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116759
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/55758
dc.description.abstractDespite the popularity and efficiency of dictionary-based sentiment analysis (DSA) for public health research, limited empirical evidence has been produced about the validity of DSA and potential harms to the validity of DSA. A random sample of a second-hand Ebola tweet dataset was used to evaluate the validity of DSA compared to the manual coding approach and examine the influences of textual features on the validity of DSA. The results revealed substantial inconsistency between DSA and the manual coding approach. The presence of certain textual features such as negation can partially account for the inconsistency between DSA and manual coding. The findings imply that scholars should be careful and critical about findings in disease-related public health research that use DSA. Certain textual features should be more carefully addressed in DSA. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
dc.subjectANEW
dc.subjectinfectious diseases
dc.subjectLIWC
dc.subjectsentiment analysis
dc.subjectSentiWordNet
dc.subjectvalidity
dc.titleDetecting Sentiment toward Emerging Infectious Diseases on Social Media: A Validity Evaluation of Dictionary-Based Sentiment Analysis
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder2022 by the authors
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 4.0
local.collegeBob Schieffer College of Communication
local.departmentCommunication Studies
local.personsZhuang (COMM)


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/