Voter Apathy: A Psychometric Enabled Measurement

References

[1] Anzia, S. (2012). The election timing effect: Evidence from a policy intervention in Texas. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7(3): 209-248.

[2] American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and National Council on Measurement in Education. (NCME). (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C. : Authors

[3] Arowolo, D., & Aluko, F. (2010). Women and political participation in Nigeria. European Journal of Social Sciences, 14 (4): 581-583

[4] Cronbach, L. (1971). Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed). Educational Measurement (2Eds). Washington, D.C: American Council on Education

[5] Fisher, S. (2007). (Change in) turnout and (Change in) the left share of the vote. Electoral Studies, 26(3): 598-611

[6] Idike, A. (2014). Political parties, political apathy and democracy in Nigeria: Contending issues and the way forward. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 4 (3): 2-10

[7] INEC (2019). 2019 presidential election and voter turnout. Independent National Electoral Commission

[8] Hill, S. (2010). Changing composition and changing allegiance in American politics. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Los Angelis

[9] Okurame, D. (2002). Influence of Psychological factors and the mediatory role of informal mentoring on career outcomes of first -line managers. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis: University of Ibadan

[10] Olapegba, P. (2008a). Influence of psycho-social factors on perceived quality of life and aggressive tendencies and the mediating role of environmental adaptation among residents of Olusosun community in Lagos state. Unpublished Ph.D thesis: University of Ibadan.

[11] Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory, (2eds). New York: The McGraw-Hill.

[12] Mason, D., Nelson, D., & Szklarski, T. (1991). Apathy and the birth of democracy: The Polish struggle. East European Politics and Societies, 5 (2): 15-29

[13] Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioural research: Exploratory and prediction. New York: Host Reinhart & Winston

[14] Ushie, E. (2005). Electoral malpractice and democracy at the grassroots in Nigeria. American Journal of International Politics and Development, 10:177-189 Appendix 1: Reliability test Table 1.1: Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Feeling of civic duty influence my willingness to vote on election day 47.66 9.319 .114 .269 .642 Rigging of election does not affect my desires to vote 47.95 9.361 .083 .356 .649 I will participate in election conducted on weekdays 48.05 8.452 .274 .197 .617 Good weather influence my desire to vote on election days 48.05 9.179 .191 .328 .629 I prefer electronic voting to physical voting 47.70 8.288 .355 .255 .600 the caliber of the contestants is a factor that determine my desire to vote 47.80 9.397 .058 .206 .655 I will vote if the contestants have manifesto that directly affect my needs 47.87 8.620 .318 .350 .608 The presence of crowd at the polling unit does not prevent me from voting for my preferred candidates 47.71 8.244 .428 .346 .588 The condition of my health does not affect my desire to vote on election day 47.96 7.781 .430 .266 .581 I can only vote if the polling unit is within reach 47.87 8.330 .452 .310 .586 Conducting election on regular basis increases my urge to vote on election day 48.21 8.681 .240 .273 .623 My schedule of work does not affect my going out to vote on election day 47.89 8.243 .448 .381 .585 Table 1.2: Cronbach alpha Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized N of Items Items .635 .634 12 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted D1 20.81 10.481 .489 .270 .739 D2 20.99 11.165 .422 .215 .754 D3 20.91 10.095 .597 .363 .712 D4 21.13 9.798 .570 .332 .717 D5 21.01 10.413 .501 .286 .736 D6 21.19 9.853 .494 .267 .740 Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .767 .768 6 Table 1.3: McDonald OmegaTest McDonald's Omega N of Items .768 6 Table 1.4: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Part 1 Value .623 N of Items 3 a Part 2 Value .648 N of Items 3 b Total N of Items 6 Correlation Between Forms .601 Spearman-Brown Coefficient Equal Length .751 Unequal Length .751 Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .747 a. The items are: D1, D2, D3. b. The items are: D4, D5, D6. Appendix 2: Factor Analysis Table 2.1: KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .820 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi- Square 3018.1 62 Df 15 Sig. .000 Table 2.2: Communalities Initial Extraction D1 1.000 .436 D2 1.000 .346 D3 1.000 .573 D4 1.000 .541 D5 1.000 .452 D6 1.000 .445 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 2.3: Total Variance Explained Com pone nt Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Tot al % of Varia nce Cum ulativ e % Tot al % of Varia nce Cumu lative % 1 2.7 93 46.55 2 46.55 2 2.79 3 46.55 2 46.55 2 2 .84 7 14.11 2 60.66 4 3 .74 6 12.43 9 73.10 3 4 .58 3 9.712 82.81 5 5 .51 8 8.635 91.45 0 6 .51 3 8.550 100.0 00 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 2.4: Component Matrix of PCA for the 6 items S/N Voter Apathy Items Loading 4 The condition of my health does not affect my desire to vote on election day .757 1 I preferred electronic voting to physical voting .736 6 My schedule of work did not affect my going out to vote on election day .673 3 The presence of crowd at the polling unit did not prevent me ..667 from voting for my preferred candidate 5 The closeness of the polling unit influenced my desire to vote on the election day .661 2 The manifesto of the contestants that directly affected my needs determined my willingness to vote .588 Eigenvalue 2.79 Percentage of Variance 46.55 Cumulative Percentage 46.55 Appendix 3: Voter apathy Scale Statement Stro ngly Agr ee A gr ee Und ecide d Dis agr ee Strongly Disagree 1 . I preferred electronic voting to physical voting. 2 The manifesto of the contestants that directly affected my needs determined my willingness to vote. 3 The presence of crowd at the polling unit did not prevent me from voting for my preferred candidate 4 The condition of my health did not affect my desire to vote on election day 5 The closeness of the polling unit influenced my desire to vote on the election day. 6 My schedule of work did not affect going out to vote on election day.

@article{1709026,
      author = {Ojo Monday, Peter Olapegba, Nyitor Alexander Shenge},
      title = {Voter Apathy: A Psychometric Enabled Measurement},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2025},
      volume = {8},
      number = {12},
      pages = {267-271},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1709026.pdf},
      abstract = {Voter apathy is a concept in political psychology that expresses the passivity or lack of interest of individuals in participating to choose their representative(s). Due to the absence of a psychometric enabled measure of voter apathy in Nigeria, this study developed a scale to measure the construct and assess the individual indisposition to performing their civic obligation. Two thousand three hundred and thirty one (2331) randomly selected respondents across the three senatorial districts of Lagos State with ages ranging from 20-65 years old, a mean age of 25.2 and standard deviation of 9.7 participated in the study. This is a 6-item scale in the Likert format of 5-point response options ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Result shows that the measure has content validity (using 80% agreements of experts).  Reliability test revealed a Cronbach?s coefficient alpha of .76 and the standardized item alpha of .76 and McDonald?s test of .76. Guttman split-half coefficient is .74 with Correlation between forms of .60. Equal-length Spearman-Brown coefficient is .75 while Alpha for parts 1 and 2 were .62 and .68 respectively. The Statistical analysis also revealed significance of the KMO test at .82 and Bartlett?s test (x2(78) = 3018.16, p <.001) while communalities of variable?s variability ranged between .34 and .57. Factor Analysis using principal component analysis (PCA) shows that all the items loaded as one factor with eigenvalue of 2.793 and cumulative percentage variance of 46.55. It was concluded that this scale is relevant in measuring the political tendency of individual in the discharge of their civic responsibility - voting in a democratic setting.},
      keywords = {Lagos State, psychometric, reliability, validation, voter apathy.},
      month = {June},
  }