article Open access

The Validity of Sentiment Analysis: Comparing Manual Annotation, Crowd-Coding, Dictionary Approaches, and Machine Learning Algorithms

  • Communication Methods and Measures
  • Taylor & Francis
Research footprint

At a glance

Citations
398
References
90
Comments
0
Paper overview

Abstract

Sentiment is central to many studies of communication science, from negativity and polarization in political communication to analyzing product reviews and social media comments in other sub-fields. This study provides an exhaustive comparison of sentiment analysis methods, using a validation set of Dutch economic headlines to compare the performance of manual annotation, crowd coding, numerous dictionaries and machine learning using both traditional and deep learning algorithms. The three main conclusions of this article are that: (1) The best performance is still attained with trained human or crowd coding; (2) None of the used dictionaries come close to acceptable levels of validity; and (3) machine learning, especially deep learning, substantially outperforms dictionary-based methods but falls short of human performance. From these findings, we stress the importance of always validating automatic text analysis methods before usage. Moreover, we provide a recommended step-by-step approach for (automated) text analysis projects to ensure both efficiency and validity.

Record transparency

Publication details

DOI
10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198
OpenAlex
W3128553165
Document type
article
Language
EN
Source
Communication Methods and Measures
Last metadata update
Community

Comments

Log in to join the discussion.

  1. No comments yet. Start the discussion.