Güven Eğilimi Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Analizi

Yıl 2019, 18. UİK Özel Sayısı, 850 - 866, 31.08.2019

İlksun Didem Ülbeği , Azmi Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.592428

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Frazier, Johnson, & Fainshmidt (2013) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan güven eğilimi ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanarak geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda Türkiye’de öğrenciler (n = 287) ve çalışanlardan (n = 323) oluşan iki farklı örneklemden elde edilen veri ile açıklayıcı faktör analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, iç tutarlılık katsayıları ve geçerlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Buna göre yapılan açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları ölçeğin tek faktörlü bir yapısı olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca gerçekleştirilmiş olan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları da ölçeğin tek faktörlü bir yapısı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur (χ²/sd = 1.345; p = .261; CFI = .999; TLI = .998; IFI = .999; RMSEA = .033; SRMR= .008). Güvenirlik analizleri bulguları ise alfa ve omega katsayılarının ölçeğin güvenilir olduğuna işaret ettiğini belirlemiştir. Ölçeğin geçerliğine yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilen ayrışma geçerliği, birleşme geçerliği ve ölçüt bağımlı geçerliğe yönelik değerlendirmeler ise  ölçeğin geçerliğini ortaya koymuştur. Yapılan açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile geçerlilik ve güvenirlik analizlerinin sonucunda elde edilen bulgular güven eğilimi ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir olarak değerlendirilebileceğini ortaya koymakta olup Türkiye’de yapılacak olan araştırmalarda kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Güven Eğilimi, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi

The Validity and Reliability of Propensity to Trust Scale

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to assess the validity and reliability of propensity to trust scale developed by Frazier, Johnson, & Fainshmidt (2013) by adapting to Turkish. In this regard, explanatory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, item analysis, internal consistency coefficients, and validity analyses are conducted with the data obtained from two different samples comprised of students (n = 287) and employees (n = 323) in Turkey. According to this, explanatory factor analysis results showed single factor consrtuct of the scale. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis findings also revelaed single factor construct of this scale (χ/sd = 1.345; p = .261; CFI = .999; TLI = .998; IFI = .999; RMSEA = .033; SRMR= .008). Reliability analyses results showed Alpha and Omega coefficients indicate that the scale is reliable. Regarding the validity of the scale discriminant validity, convergent validity, and criterion related validity related assessments revealed the validity of the scale. The results of explanatory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, validity, and reliability analyses findings revealed that Turkish version of propensity to trust scale is a valid and reliable instrument to use in studies in Turkey. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Propensity to Trust, Validity, Reliability, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Kaynakça

• Ashleigh, M. J., Higgs, M., and Dulewicz, V. (2012). A new propensity to trust scale and its relationship with individual well-being: implications for HRM policies and practices, Human Resource Management Journal, 22 (4), 360–376. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12007
• Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (2006). Introduction. In (R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer Eds.) Handbook of Trust Research (p. 1- 12). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş [Introduction to structural equation modeling]. İstanbul: Ezgi Kitabevi.
• Bernerth, J. B. and Walker, H. J. (2008). Propensity to trust and the impact on social exchange. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15 (3), 217–226. doi:10.1177/1548051808326594
• Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., and Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları, 2.baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A. and LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
• Cook, J., and Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
• Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
• Epskamp, S. & with contributions from Stuber, S. (2017). semPlot: Path Diagrams and Visual Analysis of Various SEM Packages' Output. R package version 1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPlot.
• Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., and Borsboom, D. (2012). Qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (4), 1-18. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i04/ accessed on 20.01.2019.
• Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., and Fainshmidt, S. (2013). Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research, 3 (2), 76-97.
• Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J. E., and McNally, J. (2005). Antecedents of trust: Establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(3), 287–302. doi:10.1007/s10869-004-2229-8
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B J., and Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson International Edition, 7th Edition. US: Pearson Education Limited.
• Heyns, M. and Rothmann, S. (2015). Dimensionality of trust: An analysis of the relations between propensity, trustworthiness and trust. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41 (1), 01-12.
• Lewis, J. D., and Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967–985.
• Mahony, D. M., Klimchak, M., and Morrell, D. L. (2012). The portability of career‐long work experience. Career Development International, 17 (7), 606–625. doi:10.1108/13620431211283779
• Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709–734. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Meydan, C. H., and Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları:Structural equation modeling AMOS applications]. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In (R. M. Kramer and T. Tyler Eds.), Trust in Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Nambudiri, R. (2012). Propensity to trust and organizational commitment: a study in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (5), 977–986.
• Nunnally, J. C., ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
• Poon, J. M. L., Mohd Salleh, A. H., and Senik, Z. C. (2007). Propensity to trust as a moderator of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 10 (3), 350–366. doi:10.1108/ijotb-10-03-2007-b004
• R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ accessed on 20.01.2019.
• Revelle, W. (2017). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version=1.7.8 accessed on 20.01.2019.
• Ring, S. M., and Van De Ven, A. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organi-zations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483-498.
• Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. and Wrightson, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In (J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver and L. S. Wrightson Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (p. 1-16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.
• Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651–665. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
• Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26 (5), 443–452. doi:10.1037/h0031464
• Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35 (1), 1–7. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.1.1
• Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1996). Empowerment in veterinary clinics: the role of trust in delegation. Paper presented Journal of Trust Research, 6 (1), 76–90.
• Sitkin, S. B, and Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392.
• Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., and Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (1), 3–23. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(200002)21:1<3::aid-job47>3.0.co;2-6
• Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., and Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926624