Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Fiziksel aktivite yeterliği ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 44 - 54, 15.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.308845

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, ergenlerin farklı fiziksel faaliyet alanlarındaki fiziksel olarak aktif olma yeterliğini değerlendirmek için Campbell ve ark., (2016) tarafından geliştirilen 5 boyut (Okulda, Ulaşımda, Ev içi, Boş zaman ve rekreasyon, Okul içi gezinti ve ulaşımda) ve 26 maddeden oluşan Fiziksel Aktivite Yeterliği Ölçeğinin (FAYÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanması amacıyla yapılmıştır.

Materyal ve Yöntem: Bu ölçeğin Türkçeye çevirisinde Brislin’in (1986) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya, Muğla ilinde Fen Lisesi ve Anadolu Liselerinde öğrenim gören toplam 205 lise öğrencisi gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Ölçeğin faktör yapısının geçerli bir model olup olmadığının ortaya konulması için verilere hem Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) hem de Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) uygulanmıştır.

Bulgular: AFA’ya göre tüm maddelerin faktör yükleri 0,405 ile 0,924 arasında değişmektedir. Ayrıca güvenirlik analizine göre, “ulaşımda” boyutu oldukça güvenilir iken, diğer tüm boyutlar yüksek derecede güvenilirdir. Diğer taraftan, DFA sonuçlarına göre ölçme modelinin uyum değerleri X2=559.7, df=289, X2/df=1.93; CFI=0.950, IFI=0.951, NFI=0.903; RMSEA=0.068 olarak bulunmuştur.
























Sonuçlar: Uyum ölçütleri değerlerinden X2/df iyi uyumu gösterirken, diğer ölçütlerin değerleri kabul edilebilir uyumu göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, Fiziksel Aktivite Yeterliği Ölçeğinin Türk Kültürüne uygun olduğu söylenebilir ve ergenlerde farklı fiziksel faaliyet alanlarında fiziksel aktivite yeterliğini belirlemek için kullanılabilir. 

References

  • Alpar, R. (2010). Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinde Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • Baranowski, T., Anderson, C., & Carmack, C. (1998). Mediating variable framework in physical activity interventions: How are we doing? How might we do better? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 266-297.
  • Bartholomew, J. B., Loukas, A., Jowers, E. M., & Allua, S. (2006). Validation of the physical activity self-efficacy scale: Testing measurement invariance between Hispanic and Caucasian children. Journal of Physical activity and Health, 3(1), 70-78.
  • Bartlett, M.S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section, 3, 77-85.
  • Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. (WJ Lonner ve JW Berry, Der.), Field Methods in Educational Research (s. 137-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Campbell, N., Gray, C., Foley, L., Maddison, R., & Prapavessis, H. (2016). A domain-specific approach for assessing physical activity efficacy in adolescents: From scale conception to predictive validity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 20-26.
  • Cengiz, C., & İnce, M. L. (2013). Farkli okul ortamlarindaki çocuklarin okul sonrası fiziksel aktivitelerde algıladıkları öz-yeterlikleri. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(21), 135-147
  • Colella, D., Morano, M., Bortoli, L., & Robazza, C. (2008). A physical self-efficacy scale for children. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(6), 841-848.
  • Dishman, R. K., Motl, R. W., Saunders, R., Felton, G., Ward, D. S., Dowda, M., & Pate, R. R. (2004). Self-efficacy partially mediates the effect of a school-based physical-activity intervention among adolescent girls. Preventive medicine, 38(5), 628-636.
  • Dursun, Y. ve Kocagöz, E. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve regresyon: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(35), 1-17.
  • Fernandez Cabrera, T., Medina Anzano, S., Herrera Sánchez, I. M., Rueda Méndez, S., & Fernández Del Olmo, A. (2011).
  • Construcción y validación de una escala de autoeficacia para la actividad física. Revista Española de Salud Pública, 85(4), 405-417.
  • Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Gao, Z., Lee, A. M., Kosma, M., & Solmon, M. A. (2010). Understanding students' motivation in middle school physical education: examining the mediating role of self-efficacy on physical activity. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 41(3), 199-215.
  • Haas, B. K., & Northam, S. (2010). Measuring self-efficacy: development of the physical activity assessment ınventory. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 10(4), 35-51.
  • Harding, S. K., Page, A. S., Falconer, C., & Cooper, A. R. (2015). Longitudinal changes in sedentary time and physical activity during adolescence.International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 44.
  • Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, I. M. (2009). Epidemiologic methods in physical activity studies. United States of America: Oxford University Press.
  • Liang, Y., Lau, P. W., Huang, W. Y., Maddison, R., & Baranowski, T. (2014). Validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring physical activity self-efficacy, enjoyment, social support among Hong Kong Chinese children. Preventive Medicine Reports, 1, 48-52.
  • Meydanlıoğlu, A. (2015). Çocuklarda fiziksel aktivitenin biyopsikososyal yararları. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 7(2), 125-135.
  • Meydanlıoğlu, A., Ergun, A. (2013). Reliability and Validity of Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale in Turkish Children. The Journal of Macro Trends in Health and Medicine, 1(1), 22-32.
  • Ryan, G. J., & Dzewaltowski, D. A. (2002). Comparing the relationships between different types of self-efficacy and physical activity in youth. Health Education & Behavior, 29(4), 491-504.
  • Saygın, Ö., Göral, K., Bingöl, E., Ceylan, H.İ. (2016). Alana özgü fiziksel aktivite yeterliği ölçeği: türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. 14. Uluslararası Spor Bilimleri Kongresi, 01-04 Kasım, Antalya, Türkiye.
  • Stutts, W. C. (2002). Physical activity determinants in adults: perceived benefits, barriers, and self efficacy. Aaohn Journal, 50(11), 499-507.
  • Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Kurumu (2014). Türkiye Fiziksel Aktivite Rehberi. Ankara: Kuban Matbaacılık.http://beslenme.gov.tr/content/files/basin_materyal/Fiziksel_aktivite_rehberi/turkce.pdf.
  • WHO (2015). http://fizikselaktivite.gov.tr/tr/fiziksel-aktivite-dunya-saglik-orgutu-2015/
  • Wu, T. Y., Robbins, L. B., & Hsieh, H. F. (2011). Instrument development and validation of perceived physical activity self-efficacy scale for adolescents. Research and theory for nursing practice, 25(1), 39-54.

Turkish adaptation of the physical activity efficacy scale: the study of validity and reliability

Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 44 - 54, 15.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.308845

Abstract

Aim: This study was conducted to adapt the Physical
Activity Efficacy Scale (PAES) consisting of 5 dimensions (ambulatory,
household, leisure-time, transportation and school efficacy) and 26 items
developed by Campbell et al. (2016) into Turkish in order to evaluate the
physical competence of the adolescents in different physical activity fields.




















Material and Methods: The method of Brislin (1986) was used in
translating this scale into Turkish. A total of 205 high school students
studying at Science High School and Anatolian High School in Muğla participated
in this study voluntarily. Both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were applied to the data to determine
whether the factor structure of the scale was a valid model.
















Results: According to EFA, factor loadings of all items
range from 0,405 to 0,924. Also, according to the reliability analysis, the
dimension "in transportation" was quite reliable while all other
dimensions were highly reliable. On the other hand, the compliance values of
the measurement model according to the CFA results was found as
X2=559.7,
df = 289,
X2/df = 1.93; CFI = 0.950, IFI = 0.951, NFI =
0.903; RMSEA = 0.068.







































Conclusion: While the compliance
measures showed good agreement of
X2/df, the values of the
other criteria showed acceptable adaptability. As a result, it can be said that
PAES was appropriate for Turkish culture and can be used to determine physical
activity efficacy in different physical activity fields in adolescents.

References

  • Alpar, R. (2010). Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinde Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • Baranowski, T., Anderson, C., & Carmack, C. (1998). Mediating variable framework in physical activity interventions: How are we doing? How might we do better? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 266-297.
  • Bartholomew, J. B., Loukas, A., Jowers, E. M., & Allua, S. (2006). Validation of the physical activity self-efficacy scale: Testing measurement invariance between Hispanic and Caucasian children. Journal of Physical activity and Health, 3(1), 70-78.
  • Bartlett, M.S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section, 3, 77-85.
  • Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. (WJ Lonner ve JW Berry, Der.), Field Methods in Educational Research (s. 137-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Campbell, N., Gray, C., Foley, L., Maddison, R., & Prapavessis, H. (2016). A domain-specific approach for assessing physical activity efficacy in adolescents: From scale conception to predictive validity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 20-26.
  • Cengiz, C., & İnce, M. L. (2013). Farkli okul ortamlarindaki çocuklarin okul sonrası fiziksel aktivitelerde algıladıkları öz-yeterlikleri. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(21), 135-147
  • Colella, D., Morano, M., Bortoli, L., & Robazza, C. (2008). A physical self-efficacy scale for children. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(6), 841-848.
  • Dishman, R. K., Motl, R. W., Saunders, R., Felton, G., Ward, D. S., Dowda, M., & Pate, R. R. (2004). Self-efficacy partially mediates the effect of a school-based physical-activity intervention among adolescent girls. Preventive medicine, 38(5), 628-636.
  • Dursun, Y. ve Kocagöz, E. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve regresyon: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(35), 1-17.
  • Fernandez Cabrera, T., Medina Anzano, S., Herrera Sánchez, I. M., Rueda Méndez, S., & Fernández Del Olmo, A. (2011).
  • Construcción y validación de una escala de autoeficacia para la actividad física. Revista Española de Salud Pública, 85(4), 405-417.
  • Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Gao, Z., Lee, A. M., Kosma, M., & Solmon, M. A. (2010). Understanding students' motivation in middle school physical education: examining the mediating role of self-efficacy on physical activity. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 41(3), 199-215.
  • Haas, B. K., & Northam, S. (2010). Measuring self-efficacy: development of the physical activity assessment ınventory. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 10(4), 35-51.
  • Harding, S. K., Page, A. S., Falconer, C., & Cooper, A. R. (2015). Longitudinal changes in sedentary time and physical activity during adolescence.International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 44.
  • Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, I. M. (2009). Epidemiologic methods in physical activity studies. United States of America: Oxford University Press.
  • Liang, Y., Lau, P. W., Huang, W. Y., Maddison, R., & Baranowski, T. (2014). Validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring physical activity self-efficacy, enjoyment, social support among Hong Kong Chinese children. Preventive Medicine Reports, 1, 48-52.
  • Meydanlıoğlu, A. (2015). Çocuklarda fiziksel aktivitenin biyopsikososyal yararları. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 7(2), 125-135.
  • Meydanlıoğlu, A., Ergun, A. (2013). Reliability and Validity of Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale in Turkish Children. The Journal of Macro Trends in Health and Medicine, 1(1), 22-32.
  • Ryan, G. J., & Dzewaltowski, D. A. (2002). Comparing the relationships between different types of self-efficacy and physical activity in youth. Health Education & Behavior, 29(4), 491-504.
  • Saygın, Ö., Göral, K., Bingöl, E., Ceylan, H.İ. (2016). Alana özgü fiziksel aktivite yeterliği ölçeği: türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. 14. Uluslararası Spor Bilimleri Kongresi, 01-04 Kasım, Antalya, Türkiye.
  • Stutts, W. C. (2002). Physical activity determinants in adults: perceived benefits, barriers, and self efficacy. Aaohn Journal, 50(11), 499-507.
  • Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Kurumu (2014). Türkiye Fiziksel Aktivite Rehberi. Ankara: Kuban Matbaacılık.http://beslenme.gov.tr/content/files/basin_materyal/Fiziksel_aktivite_rehberi/turkce.pdf.
  • WHO (2015). http://fizikselaktivite.gov.tr/tr/fiziksel-aktivite-dunya-saglik-orgutu-2015/
  • Wu, T. Y., Robbins, L. B., & Hsieh, H. F. (2011). Instrument development and validation of perceived physical activity self-efficacy scale for adolescents. Research and theory for nursing practice, 25(1), 39-54.
There are 28 citations in total.

Details

Subjects Sports Medicine
Journal Section SPORT & HEALTH SCIENCES
Authors

Özcan Saygın

Kemal Göral

Erkan Bingöl This is me

Halil İbrahim Ceylan

Publication Date June 15, 2017
Submission Date April 25, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 3 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Saygın, Ö., Göral, K., Bingöl, E., Ceylan, H. İ. (2017). Turkish adaptation of the physical activity efficacy scale: the study of validity and reliability. International Journal of Sport Exercise and Training Sciences - IJSETS, 3(2), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.308845