Sporda Kişiler Arası Davranışlar Ölçeği (SKD) Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2018, Volume: 23 Issue: 4, 219 - 231, 01.10.2018

Mevlüt Yıldız , Ender Şenel

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Rocchi, Pelletier ve Desmerais (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Sporda Kişiler Arası Bu cümle birleştirilebilir. Çünkü çok fazla tekrar var. (katılımcılar Davranışlar Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerinin yapılmasıdır. Araştırmaya çeşitli spor branşlarından 281 sporcu katılmıştır. Katılımcıların %39.9’u kadın, %60.1’i erkektir ve 14-36 yaşlar arasındadır. Spor yaşı ortalaması 9.34±4.86 olarak bulunurken yaş ortalamasının 22.94±3.56 olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlanması için çeviri-geri çeviri yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu işlemden sonra elde edilen Türkçe form sporculara internet ortamında gönderilmiştir. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği için sporculardan toplanan veriler üzerinden doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmış ve elde edilen uyum indeksleri değerlendirilmiştir. Veriler AMOS programında analiz edilmiştir. Ölçeğin Türkçe formunun orijinal ölçekte olduğu gibi 6 faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeğin güvenirlik analizleri bileşik güvenirlik ve alfa katsayısı ile hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca sporculardan, Deci ve Ryan (1991) tarafından geliştirilen, Bacanlı ve Cihangir-Çankaya (2003) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan İhtiyaç Doyumu Ölçeği ve Watson, Clark ve Tellegen (1988) tarafından geliştirilen, Gençöz (2000) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Ölçeği kullanılarak veriler toplanmıştır. Toplanan bu veriler Sporda Kişiler Arası Davranışlar Ölçeği ile ilişkilendirilerek geçerlik çalışması yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, elde edilen bulgular Sporda Kişiler Arası Davranışlar Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun 14 yaş ve üzeri Türk sporcularda da kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

Kişiler Arası Davranış, Ölçek Uyarlama, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire in Sport Validity and Reliability of Turkish Form

Abstract

The aim of this study was to translate in Turkish, analyze reliability validity of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire in Sport (IBQ), developed by Rocchi, Pelletier and Desmerais (2016). 281 athletes from various sporting branches participated in the study.39.9% of the participants were females and 60.1% of them were males. The ages of participants were between 14 and 36 years and the sporting age mean of the participants were found to be 9.34±4.86. The age mean of them was found to be 22.94±3.56. Translation-back translation method was used to translate the scale to Turkish. After this process Turkish version of the questionnaire was sent to athletes through web. Collected data from athletes was analyzed in AMOS by using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Furthermore, analysis showed that the Turkish version of the questionnaire had 6-dimensional structure as it was in the original one. Cronbach’s alpha value was used for internal consistency. The Turkish version was correlated with need satisfaction, developed by Deci ve Ryan (1991), adapted by Bacanlı ve Cihangir-Çankaya (2003), and Positive and Negative Emotions Scale developed by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988), adapted by Gençöz (2000) for the validity analysis. Consequently, it was found that The Turkish version of IBQ was suitable to use for samples including Turkish athletes at the ages of 14 and over.

Keywords

Interpersonal Relationship, Scale Adaptation, Validity, Reliability

References

• 1. Amorose, A. J. (2007). Coaching effectiveness: Exploring the relationship between coaching behavior and self-determined motivation. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 209-228). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• 2. Bacanlı, H. ve Cihangir-Çankaya, Z. (2003). İhtiyaç doyumu ölçeği uyarlama çalışması, VII. Ulusal Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Kongresinde sunulan bildiri, İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
• 3. Barker, R., Gledhill, A., Lydon, C., Miles, A., Mulligan, C., Saffery, G., Sutton, L. (2007). BTEC National Sport, Book 1 (2nd ed.). Oxford: Heinemann.
• 4. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
• 5. Blanchard, C. M., Amiot, C. E., Perreault, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Provencher, P. (2009). Cohesiveness, coach's interpersonal style and psychological needs: Their effects on self-determination and athletes' subjective well-being. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(5), 545-551.
• 6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.
• 7. Bruner, M. W., Eys, M. A., Wilson, K. S., & Cote, J. (2014). Group cohesion and positive youth development in team sport athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3, 219-227.
• 8. Coffee, P., Freeman, P., & Allen, M. S. (2017). The TASS-Q: The Team-referent Availability of Social Support Questionnaire. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 55-65.
• 9. Conroy, D. E., Kaye, M. P., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coaching climates and the destructive effects of mastery-avoidance achievement goals on situational motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 69-92.
• 10. Çankaya, Z. C. (2009). Özerklik Desteği, Temel Psikolojik İhtiyaçların Doyumu ve Öznel İyi Olma: Öz-Belirleme Kuramı. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(31), 23-31.
• 11. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• 12. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272.
• 13. Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(46), 19-26.
• 14. Gill, D. L., & Williams, L. (2008). Psychological Dynamics of Sport and Exercise (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• 15. Hair, J. F, Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: an introduction. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective, (pp. 629–686). Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River.
• 16. Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed), Advances in sport psychology (3rd edition) (pp. 239-268). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• 17. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
• 18. Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., et al. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 667-683.
• 19. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98.
• 20. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Scientific Software.
• 21. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
• 22. Meydan C., H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları. Detay: Ankara.
• 23. Morris, R. L., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). Antecedents of approach-avoidance goals in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(5), 465-476.
• 24. Rae, G. (2006). Correcting Coefficient Alpha for Correlated Errors: Is αK a Lower Bound to Reliability? Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 56-59.
• 25. Raines-Eudy, R. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 124-141.
• 26. Roberts, G. C. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in physical activity: The influence of achievement goals on motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 1/50). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• 27. Rocchi, M., Pelletier, L., & Desmarais, P. (2017). The validity of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire (IBQ) in sport. Measurement in physical education and exercise science, 21(1), 15-25.
• 28. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
• 29. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
• 30. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
• 31. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association. Washington DC
• 32. Thurber, S., & Bonynge, M. (2011). SEM-based composite reliability estimates of the Crisis Acuity Rating Scale with children and adolescents. Archives of Assessment Psychology, 1(1), 1-17.
• 33. Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
• 34. Vallerand, R. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263–319). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• 35. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
• 36. Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient Alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4) 377-392.