Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Beklenen Güven Ölçeği Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 45 - 58, 26.01.2021

Ali Osman Uymaz

https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.807666
Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Beklenen Güven Ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlamasını, geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizlerini yapmaktır. Metodolojik çalışmanın örneklemini 412 yetişkin birey oluşturmuştur. Ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlaması; çeviri, geri çeviri, uzman görüşlerinin alınması, ölçeğin oluşturulması, ilk test ve sonrasında yeniden test verilerinin toplanması aşamalarından oluşmuştur. Ölçek geçerlilik analizi için kapsam geçerlilik katsayısı hesaplanmış, yapı geçerliliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve madde ayırt edici gücü analizi yapılmıştır. Ölçek güvenilirliği için toplam ölçek ve alt boyutlarının iç tutarlılık göstergesi Cronbach alfa değerleri, zamana göre değişmezlik özelliği için t testi ile ilk ve yeniden test puanları üzerinden grup ve boyut düzeyinde karşılaştırma değerleri ve sınıf için korelasyon katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucu 15 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin tüm maddeleri korunmuştur. Ölçeğin Türkçe uyarlamasının kapsam geçerlilik katsayısı 0.98 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin Cronbach alfa değeri tüm ölçek için 0.765, beklenen art niyet boyutunun aritmetik ortalaması 3.63, standart sapması 0.65, sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0.974, Cronbach alfa değeri 0.814; beklenen iyi niyet boyutunun ise aritmetik ortalaması 3.34, standart sapması 1.06, sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0.927, Cronbach alfa değeri 0.725 bulunmuştur. Beklenen art niyet ve beklenen iyi niyet açısından katılımcılar değerlendirildiği zaman art niyet beklentisinin daha güçlü olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Erkek katılımcıların kadın katılımcılara açısından her iki boyut açısından istatiksel açıdan anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır.

Keywords

Güven Beklenen Güven İyi Niyet Beklentisi Art Niyet Beklentisi Sosyal İlişki

References

  • Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review . International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 139-161.
  • Baysal, A. C. (2000). Tutumlar. E. Tekarslan, T. Kılınç, & A. C. Baysal içinde, Davranışın Sosyal Psikolojisi (s. 197-236). İstanbul: İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları.
  • Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating ccales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149), 1-18.
  • Brankley, A. E., & Abrac, J. (2016). Interpersonal malevolence: Forensic applications of dark personality research. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 469-470.
  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
  • Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multilevel review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606-632.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structual Equation Modeling with AMOS. New York: Routledge.
  • Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2012). Trust, positive reciprocity, and negative reciprocity: Do these traits impact entrepreneurial dynamics? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 394-409.
  • Carré, J. R., Jones, D. N., & Mueller, S. M. (2020). Perceiving opportunities for legal and illegal profit: Machiavellianism and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 109942.
  • Cattell, R. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials I. The purpose and underlying models. Biometrics, 21(1), 190-215.
  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & 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, 909–927.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Cui, Y., & Jiao, H. (2019). Organizational justice and management trustworthiness during organizational change: Interactions of benevolence, integrity, and managerial approaches. Information Processing and Management, 56, 1526-1542.
  • Cunha, D. A. (1985). Interpersonal Trust as A Function of Social Orientation. Delaware: University of Delaware.
  • De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150.
  • Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.
  • Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(X), 1-13.
  • Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114-121.
  • Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York: Oxford University.
  • Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz , C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’
  • Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512-519.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. (2015). It isn't always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41(1), 47-70.
  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
  • Kurtuluş, K. (2011). Araştırma Yöntemleri. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitabevi.
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitave approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
  • Lewicki, R. F., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 583–601.
  • Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.
  • Liljequist, D., Elfving, B., & Roaldsen, K. S. (2019). Intraclass correlation – A discussion and demonstration of basic features. Plos One, 14(7), 1-35.
  • Liu, S., Zhou, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2020). Multiple mediating effects in the relationship between employees’ trust in organizational safety and safety participation behavior. Safety Science, 125, 104611.
  • Ma, J., Schaubroeck, J. M., & LeBlanc, C. (2020, Agustos 17). Interpersonal trust in organizations. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: https://oxfordre.com/business/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-167?rskey=hlEt1d&result=1 adresinden alındı
  • Matlock-Hetzel, S. (1997). Basic concepts in item and test analysis. Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (s. 21). San Antonio: ERIC Document: ED406441.
  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Pyschometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Ogbeibu, S., Senadjki, A., & Gaskin, J. (2018). The moderating effect of benevolence on the impact of organisational culture on employee creativity. Journal of Business Research, 90, 334-346.
  • Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(11), 9-19.
  • Price, P. C. (2013). Research Methods in Psychology. Fresno, California: The Saylor Foundation.
  • Rodrigues, I. B., Adachi, J. D., Beattie, K. A., & MacDermid, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 18(540), 3-9. Biomedcentral . adresinden alındı
  • Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. US: Doubleday.
  • Shulman, T. D. (2005). Biting the hand that feeds: The employee theft epidemic. West Conshohocken, PA: Infinity Publishing.
  • Simon, O., Neuhofer, B., & Egger, R. (2020). Human-robot interaction: Conceptualising trust in frontline teams through LEGO® Serious Play®. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100692.
  • Svare, H., Gausdal, A. H., & Möllering, G. (2020). he function of ability, benevolence, and integrity- based trust in innovation networks. Industry and Innovation, 27(6), 585-604.
  • Tortoriello, G. K., Hart, W., & Breeden, C. J. (2020). Of malevolence and morality: Psychopathy dimensions are conducive to helping in highly-distressing moral dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109759.
  • Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 45 - 58, 26.01.2021

Ali Osman Uymaz

https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.807666
Cited By: 2

Abstract

References

  • Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review . International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 139-161.
  • Baysal, A. C. (2000). Tutumlar. E. Tekarslan, T. Kılınç, & A. C. Baysal içinde, Davranışın Sosyal Psikolojisi (s. 197-236). İstanbul: İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları.
  • Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating ccales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149), 1-18.
  • Brankley, A. E., & Abrac, J. (2016). Interpersonal malevolence: Forensic applications of dark personality research. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 469-470.
  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
  • Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multilevel review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606-632.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structual Equation Modeling with AMOS. New York: Routledge.
  • Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2012). Trust, positive reciprocity, and negative reciprocity: Do these traits impact entrepreneurial dynamics? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 394-409.
  • Carré, J. R., Jones, D. N., & Mueller, S. M. (2020). Perceiving opportunities for legal and illegal profit: Machiavellianism and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 109942.
  • Cattell, R. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials I. The purpose and underlying models. Biometrics, 21(1), 190-215.
  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & 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, 909–927.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Cui, Y., & Jiao, H. (2019). Organizational justice and management trustworthiness during organizational change: Interactions of benevolence, integrity, and managerial approaches. Information Processing and Management, 56, 1526-1542.
  • Cunha, D. A. (1985). Interpersonal Trust as A Function of Social Orientation. Delaware: University of Delaware.
  • De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150.
  • Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.
  • Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(X), 1-13.
  • Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114-121.
  • Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York: Oxford University.
  • Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz , C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’
  • Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512-519.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. (2015). It isn't always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41(1), 47-70.
  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
  • Kurtuluş, K. (2011). Araştırma Yöntemleri. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitabevi.
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitave approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
  • Lewicki, R. F., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 583–601.
  • Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.
  • Liljequist, D., Elfving, B., & Roaldsen, K. S. (2019). Intraclass correlation – A discussion and demonstration of basic features. Plos One, 14(7), 1-35.
  • Liu, S., Zhou, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2020). Multiple mediating effects in the relationship between employees’ trust in organizational safety and safety participation behavior. Safety Science, 125, 104611.
  • Ma, J., Schaubroeck, J. M., & LeBlanc, C. (2020, Agustos 17). Interpersonal trust in organizations. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: https://oxfordre.com/business/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-167?rskey=hlEt1d&result=1 adresinden alındı
  • Matlock-Hetzel, S. (1997). Basic concepts in item and test analysis. Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (s. 21). San Antonio: ERIC Document: ED406441.
  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Pyschometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Ogbeibu, S., Senadjki, A., & Gaskin, J. (2018). The moderating effect of benevolence on the impact of organisational culture on employee creativity. Journal of Business Research, 90, 334-346.
  • Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(11), 9-19.
  • Price, P. C. (2013). Research Methods in Psychology. Fresno, California: The Saylor Foundation.
  • Rodrigues, I. B., Adachi, J. D., Beattie, K. A., & MacDermid, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 18(540), 3-9. Biomedcentral . adresinden alındı
  • Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. US: Doubleday.
  • Shulman, T. D. (2005). Biting the hand that feeds: The employee theft epidemic. West Conshohocken, PA: Infinity Publishing.
  • Simon, O., Neuhofer, B., & Egger, R. (2020). Human-robot interaction: Conceptualising trust in frontline teams through LEGO® Serious Play®. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100692.
  • Svare, H., Gausdal, A. H., & Möllering, G. (2020). he function of ability, benevolence, and integrity- based trust in innovation networks. Industry and Innovation, 27(6), 585-604.
  • Tortoriello, G. K., Hart, W., & Breeden, C. J. (2020). Of malevolence and morality: Psychopathy dimensions are conducive to helping in highly-distressing moral dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109759.
  • Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Ali Osman Uymaz 0000-0002-2572-0085

Publication Date January 26, 2021
Acceptance Date November 25, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 5 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Uymaz, A. O. (2021). Beklenen Güven Ölçeği Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.807666

Cited By

Internet Addiction and Its Effect on Sleep Quality Among Medical Students
Eurasian Journal of Family Medicine
https://doi.org/10.33880/ejfm.2024130104
Adölesan Dönemindeki Futbolcuların Empati Becerileri İle Alay Edilme Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi
Akdeniz Spor Bilimleri Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.38021/asbid.1391495