Çevrimiçi Olumlu Sosyal Davranış Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması

Year 2019, Volume: 27 Issue: 6, 2641 - 2649, 15.11.2019

Gazanfer Anlı

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3491

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı ergenler için geliştirilmiş olan Çev-rimiçi Olumlu Sosyal Davranış Ölçeği’nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanmasıdır. Çalışma İstanbul ilinde bulunan bir ortaoku-lun 6-8. Sınıflarında öğrenim gören 342 öğrenci ile yürütül-müştür. Öğrencilerin 191’i erkek, 151’i kadın olup yaş ortala-ması 12.70’tir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda 5 ve 6. maddeler her iki faktörden çıkarılmıştır. Buna göre iki faktörde 8’şer madde olmak üzere toplam 16 maddeden oluşan bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Bu yapıda iki faktör varyansın %59,791’ini temsil etmektedir. Ayrıca maddelerin faktör yük değerlerinin .47 ile .89 arasında değişmiş, DFA sonucunda ise modelin uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir olduğu tespit edilmiştir (𝑥2/sd=3,08, p<.001, RMSEA=.078, SRMR=.042, GFI=.900, CFI=.940, NFI=.914, TLI=.927). Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı için Cronbach alfa değerleri deneyimlenen ÇOSD boyutu için .91, uygulanan ÇOSD ise .90 olduğu, tüm ölçeğin Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı ise .94 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin madde toplam korelasyonları ise .60 ile .74 arasında değişmektedir. Bu bulgular Çevrimiçi Olumlu Sosyal Davranış Ölçeği (ÇOSDÖ) Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

olumlu sosyal davranış, çevrimiçi olumlu sosyal davranış, geçerlik, güvenirlik, uyarlama

The Adaptation of the Online Prosocial Behavior Scale Into Turkish

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt the Online Prosocial Be-havior Scale developed for adolescents to Turkish culture. The study was carried out with 342 students studying in 6-8 grades of a secondary school in Istanbul. 191 of the students are boys, 151 of them are girls and the average age is 12.70. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, 5 and 6 items were excluded from both factors. Accordingly, a structure consisting of 16 items, (8 items per factors) were obtained. In this structure, two factors represent 59,791%  of the variance. In addition, factor loadings of the items ranged between .47 and .89. As a result of DFA, the fit indices of the model were acceptable (𝑥2/sd=3,08, p<.001, RMSEA=.078, SRMR=.042, GFI=.900, CFI=.940, NFI=.914, TLI=.927). For the internal consistency of the scale, Cronbach's alpha value for the receiving online prosocial behavior dimension was .91, and for the performing online prosocial behavior dimension was .90, and the Cron-bach alpha internal consistency coefficient of the whole scale was .94. The item total correlations ranged from .60 to .74. These findings indicated that the Turkish version of the Online Prosocial Behavior Scale is valid and reliable.

Keywords

prosocial behavior, online prosocial behavior, validity, reliability, adaptation

References

• Andreoni, J., ve Scholz, J. K. (1998). An econometric analysis of charitable giving with ınterdependent preferences, Economic Inquiry (36:3), pp. 410-428.
• Bağcı, B., ve Öztürk-Samur, A. (2016). Çocuk ve yetişkin prososyallik ölçeklerinin geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 17(3), 59-79.
• Batson, C. D., ve Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. In Handbook of Psychology –Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology, I. B. Weiner, T. Millon and M. J. Lerner (eds.),Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley ve Sons, pp. 463-484.
• Bayraktar, F., Kındap, Y., Kumru, A., ve Sayıl, M. (2010). Olumlu sosyal ve saldırgan davranışlar ölçeğinin ergen örnekle-minde psikometrik açıdan incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 13(26), 1-13.
• Bekkers, R., ve Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924-973.
• Bennett, R. (2006). Innovation generation in charity promotional web sites: A suggested model and empirical test. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 347-369.
• Bennett, D., Tsikalas, K., Hupert, N., Meade, T., ve Honey, M. (1998). The benefits of online mentoring for high school girls: Telementoring Young Women in Science, Engineering, and Computing Project, year 3 evaluation. Newyork: Center for Child-ren ve Technology.
• Bentler, P. M. ve Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 88, 588-606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
• Brennan, P., Moore, S., ve Smyth, K. (1992). Alzheimer’s disease caregivers’ uses of a computer network. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 14(5), 662-673.
• Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., ve Kraut, R. (2007). Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why. Leadership at a Distance, 11, 171-194.
• Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estévez, A., Villardón, L., ve Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profiles. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128–1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017
• Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., ve de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
• Cummings, J., Sproull, L., ve Kiesler, S. (2002). Beyond hearing: Where real-world and online support meet. Group Dyna-mics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 78-88.
• Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien E. ve Witte H. D. (2018). Development of a measure of adolescents’ online prosocial behavior, Journal of Children and Media, 12(4), 448-464, DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2018.1431558
• Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, N., Saleem, M., Lim, K. M., Shibuya, A., . . . Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental stu-dies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 752–763.
• Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial behavior: Further evidence and a mediating mecha-nism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1500–1511.
• Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The GuilfordPress.
• Klisanin, D. (2011). Is the ınternet giving rise to new forms of altruism?. Media Psychology Review 3(1), pp. 1-11.
• Loureiro-Koechlin, C., ve Allan, B. (2010). Time, space and structures in an e-learning and e-mentoring project. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 721-735.
• Mares, M. L., ve Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children’s social interactions: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7, 301–322.
• ODTÜ ve TİB, (2011). Çocukların sosyal medya paylaşım sitelerini kullanım alışkanlıkları araştırma raporu. Ankara: Ulaş-tırma Bakanlığı İnternet Kurulu.
• Oswalt, R., ve Gordon, J. (1993). Blood donor motivation: A survey of minority college students. Psychological Reports, 72(3), 785-786.
• Rodriguez Aseretto, D., Di Leo, M., de Rigo, D., Corti, P., McInerney, D., Camia, A., ve San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. (2013). "Free and open source software underpinning the european forest data centre," Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 15.
• Rosenkoetter, L. I. (1999). The television situation comedy and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psycho-logy, 29, 979–993.
• Rudolph, U., Roesch, S., Greitemeyer, T., ve Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 815–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000248
• Saleem, M., Anderson, C. A., ve Gentile, D. A. (2012). Effects of prosocial, neutral, and violent video games on children’s helpful and hurtful behaviors. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 281–287.
• Sibary, S. (2006). Counseling philanthropic donors. Ethics ve Behavior, 16(3), 183-197
• Sproull, L., Conley, C. A., ve Moon, J. Y. (2013). The kindness of strangers: Prosocial behavior on the ınternet. In The Social Net: Understanding Our Online Behavior, Y. Amichai-Hamburger (ed.), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 143-164.
• Sproull, L., ve Kiesler, S. (2005) Public volunteer work on the Internet. In W. Dutton, B. Kahin, R. O’Callaghan, ve A. Wyc-koff (Eds.), Transforming enterprise: the economic and social implications of information technology (pp 361-374). Cambrid-ge: The MIT Press.
• Sudzina, F., Razmerita, L., ve Kirchner, K. (2011). Strengthening Weak Ties through On-line Gaming. Poster session præsente-ret på ACM WebSci Conference 2011, Koblenz, Tyskland.
• Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn ve Bacon.
• TÜİK. (2013). 06-15 yaş grubu çocuklarda bilişim teknolojileri kullanımı ve medya, 2013. 22 Aralık 2018 tarihinde http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=13569 adresinden erişildi.
• Wang, C., ve Wang, C. (2008). Helping others in online games: Prosocial behavior in cyberspace. CyberPsychology ve Beha-vior, 11(3), 344-346.
• WEB3, http://wearesocial.com/uk/special-reports/digital-in-2016. 22 Aralık 2018 tarihinde erişim sağlandı.