R-COMP ARAŞTIRMA YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRK DİLİ VE KÜLTÜRÜNE UYARLANMASI

Year 2018, Volume: 2018 Issue: 11, 15 - 28, 18.10.2018

Muhammet Fatih Alkan

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Böttcher ve Thiel (2018) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan
Araştırma Yeterlikleri Ölçeğinin Türk dili ve kültürüne uyarlanması
amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma Yeterlikleri Ölçeği dört beceri ve bir bilgi olmak
üzere beş boyuttan ve bu boyutların altında yer alan toplam 12 alt boyuttan
oluşmaktadır. Ölçekteki madde sayısı 32’dir. Çalışmada kullanılan veriler
Türkiye’nin çeşitli üniversitelerinde lisansüstü eğitim almış veya almakta olan
toplam 224 katılımcıdan elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğin uyarlanması sürecinde çeviri
işlemi, çevirilerin sentezi, uzman görüşü, hedef kitlenin görüşü ile
geçerlik-güvenirlik analizlerini içeren adımlar yürütülmüştür. İkinci düzey
doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre ölçeğin beş boyut ve 12 alt
boyuttan oluşan özgün yapısının doğrulandığı görülmüştür, χ²/sd =
1.73, CFI= .92, TLI= .91, RMSEA=.06 (%90 Güven aralığı=.050-.064), SRMR= .05.
Ayrıca maddelere ilişkin faktör yüklerinin iyi düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir.
Güvenirlik analizi için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayıları hem
ölçeğin tümü, hem boyutlar ve hem de alt boyutlardan elde edilen puanların
güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir. Çalışmanın sonucu olarak, Araştırma
Yeterlikleri Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun Türk örneklemlerde kullanılmak üzere
yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Araştırma yeterlikleri ölçeği, yüksek lisans, doktora, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

Adaptation of R-Comp Research Competencies Scale into Turkish Language and Culture

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt Research Competencies Scale, which was developed by Böttcher and Thiel (2018), into Turkish language and culture. Research Competencies Scale was composed of four skills and one knowledge dimensions and a total of 12 sub dimensions. The scale involved 32 items. The data of the study were obtained from 224 participants who received/was receiving graduate education at various universities in Turkey. The steps of translation, synthesis of translation, evaluation by a committee of experts, evaluation by intended sample, and validity-reliability analyses were carried out during the adaptation process. The results of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the Turkish version fit the original five factorial and 12 sub dimensional structure, χ²/df = 1.73, CFI= .92, TLI= .91, RMSEA=.06 (90% Confidence interval =.050-.064), SRMR= .05. Moreover, factor loadings of items were at acceptable levels. The Cronbach alpha coefficients indicated that the scores obtained from both dimensions and sub dimensions were internally consistent. In conclusion, the Turkish version of Research Competencies Scale was determined to have adequate psychometric properties to be used in Turkish samples.

Keywords

Research competencies scale, master, doctorate, confirmatory factor analysis

References

• Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K. ve Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270-301. doi:10.1177/1094428112470848
• Barnette, J. J. (2000). ffects of stem and likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: if you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 361-370. doi:10.1177/00131640021970592
• Baumgartner, H. ve Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
• Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley Publications.
• Bollen, K. A. ve Davis, W. R. (2009). Two rules of identification for structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 523-536. doi:10.1080/10705510903008261
• Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F. ve Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia, 22(53), 423-432. doi:10.1590/1982-43272253201314
• Böttcher, F. ve Thiel, F. (2018). Evaluating research-oriented teaching: a new instrument to assess university students’ research competences. Higher Education, 75(1), 91–110. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0128-y
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (1999). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin araştırma yeterlikleri. Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 18, 257-269.
• Chang, H., Chen, C., Guo, G., Cheng, Y., Lin, C. ve Jen, T. (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science: inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1213-1233. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9256-x
• Desai, K. V., Gatson, S. N., Stiles, T. W., Stewart, R. H., Laine, G. A. ve Quick, C. M. (2008). Integrating research and education at research-extensive universities with research-intensive communities. Advances in Physiology Education, 32, 136–141. doi:10.1152/advan.90112.2008
• Flora, D., LaBrish, C. ve Chalmers, P. (2012). Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00055
• Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. ve Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(13). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
• Groß Ophoff, J., Schladitz, S., Lohrmann, K. ve Wirtz, M. (2014). Evidenzorientierung in bildungswissenschaftlichen studiengängen. In K. Drossel, R. Strietholt ve W. Bos (Ed.), Empirische bildungsforschung und evidenzbasierte reformen im bildungswesen (pp. 250-276). Münster: Waxmann.
• Gudmundsson, E. (2009). Guidelines for translating and adapting psychological instruments. Nordic Psychology, 61(2), 29-45. doi:10.1027/1901-2276.61.2.29
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. ve Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Henze, N. ve Zirkler, B. (1990). A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 19(10), 3595-3617.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications.
• Korkmaz, S., Göksülük, D. ve Zararsız, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151-162.
• Laake, P., Olsen, B. R. ve Benestad, H. B. (2007). Research methodology in the medical and biological sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
• MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. ve Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
• Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530.
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T. ve Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
• Meijers, A. W., van Overveld, K. C. ve Perrenet, J. C. (2005). Criteria for academic bachelor’s and master’s curricula. Delft: TU Delft.
• Muthen, L. K. ve Muthen, B. O. (2007). MPlus user's guide. Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
• Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Roane, D. M., İnan, E., Haeri, S. ve Galynker, I. I. (2009). Ensuring research competency in psychiatric residency training. Academic Psychiatry, 33(3), 215-220.
• Royston, J. P. (1982). An extension of Shapiro and Wilk’s W test for normality to large samples. Applied Statistics, 31(2), 115-124.
• Royston, J. P. (1983). Some techniques for assessing multivariate normality based on the Shapiro-Wilk W. Applied Statistics, 32(2), 121-133.
• Tabachnick, B. ve Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.
• Taşdemir, M. ve Taşdemir, A. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel araştırmaları inceleme yeterlikleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26, 343-353.
• Thiel, F. ve Böttcher, F. (2014). Modellierung fächerübergreifender forschungskompetenzen. Das RMKR-W-modell als grundlage der planung und evaluation von formaten forschungsorientierter lehre. In B. Berendt, H. P. Voss, ve J. Wildt (Ed.), Neues handbuch hochschullehre. lehren und lernen effizient gestalten. [Teil] I. Evaluation. Fachbereichs- /Studiengangsevaluation (s. 1-124). Berlin: Raabe.
• Tuncer, M. ve Özeren, E. (2012). The development of a self-efficacy scale for scientific research and an evaluation of prospective teachers’ views about that scale. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 553-561.
• Valter, K. ve Akerlind, G. (2010). Introducing students to ways of thinking and acting like a researcher: a case study of research-led education in the sciences. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 89-97.
• Van Widenfelt, B. G., Treffers, P. D., de Beurs, E., Siebelink, B. M. ve Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(2), 135-147. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1
• Yükseköğretim Kanunu. (1981). Resmi Gazete (4.11.1981). Sayı: 17506.