Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Antrenör Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 313 - 329, 02.10.2020

Öz

Antrenör öz yeterliği, antrenörlerin sporcularının öğrenme ve performansını hangi ölçüde etkileyebileceklerine ilişkin, mesleki yetenek ve kapasitelerine yönelik inancı olarak açıklanabilir. Antrenör verimliliği üzerinde etkisi olan psikolojik yapılardan olan antrenör öz yeterliğinin doğru yöntemlerle ölçülebilmesi gerekir. Bu araştırmada, antrenörlerin öz yeterlik inançlarını ölçebilecek psikometrik özelliklerde bir ölçek geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmaya Türkiye’de çeşitli spor dallarında faal olarak antrenörlük yapan 320 antrenör (32,43± 8.06 yaş) katılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizinde madde toplam puan ilişkisi, örneklem uygunluk katsayısı, açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile Croanbah’s Alfa Güvenirlik Katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre ölçek, toplam varyansın %61,487’sini açıklayan 21 madde, 5 faktörlü bir yapı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Ölçeğin birinci düzey DFA uyum indeksi değerleri madde-faktör yapısını doğrulamıştır. Ölçeğin bütününün Croanbah’s Alfa Güvenirlik Katsayısı değeri .86’dır. Sonuç olarak, Antrenör Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin (AÖYÖ) geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu ve antrenörlerin öz yeterlik düzeylerini belirlemek için kullanılabileceği söylenebilir.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Anshel, M. H. (2003). Sport psychology: From theory to practice. B. Cummings. Beswick, B. Focused for Soccer. Çeviren: Süren, E. Odak Noktamız Futbol. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi; 2016.
  • 2. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
  • 3. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
  • 4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
  • 5. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercice of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, In A. Bandura (Ed), Self-efficacy ın changing societies. New York: Cambridege University.
  • 6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • 7. 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.
  • 8. Beswick, B. (2016). Odak Noktamız Futbol. Çeviren: Süren, E. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • 9. Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
  • 10. Bentler, P.M. ve Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
  • 11. Browne, M.W. ve Cudeck, R (1993): Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p. 136-162.
  • 12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı-İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. 13. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi, s. 124.
  • 13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • 14. Byrne, B.M. ve Campbell, T.L. (1999): Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30: 555–574.
  • 15. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli İstatistik. SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • 16. Guillen, F. ve Sanchez, R. (2009). Competitive anxiety in expert female athletes: sources and intensity of anxiety in national team and first division spanish basketball players. Perception Motor Skills, 109 (2): 407–19.
  • 17. Frias, C.M. ve Dixon, R.A. (2005). Confirmatory factor structure and measurement in variance of the memory compensation questionare. Psychological Assessment, 17(2): 168-178.
  • 18. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E. ve Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776.
  • 19. Feltz, D. L. ve Weiss, M. R. (1982). Developing self-efficacy through sport. Journal of physical education, recreation & dance, 53(3), 24-36.
  • 20. Horn, T.S. (2002): Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (ed), Advances in sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  • 21. Jarvis, M. (2006). Sport psychology: A student's handbook. London, UK: Routledge.
  • 22. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • 23. Karakoç, F. Y. ve Dönmez, L. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 13(40), 39-49.
  • 24. Koçak, Ç. V. ve Güven, Ö. (2018). Voleybol antrenörü mesleki öz yeterlik ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(2), 162-177.
  • 25. Karagözoğlu, C. (2005). Sporda Psikolojik Destek, 1. Baskı. İstanbul: Morpa Yayınları.
  • 26. Malete, L. ve Feltz, D. (2000): The effects of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist. 14,(3), 410-417.
  • 27. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt,. C., Baumert, J. ve Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4): 311–360.
  • 28. Marsh, H.W., Balla J.R. ve Mcdonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness- of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 391-410.
  • 29. Marsh, H.W. ve Balla J. (1992). Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effects of sample size and model parsimony. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 28: 185-217.
  • 30. Martens, R., Vealey, R. S. ve Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
  • 31. Myers, N.D., Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Reckase, M.D., ve Hancock, G.R. (2008): The coaching efficacy scale II High school teams. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 1059-1076.
  • 32. Myers, N. D., Vargas-Tonsing, T. M. ve Feltz, D. L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6(1), 129-143.
  • 33. Myers, N. D., Wolfe, E. W. ve Feltz, D. L. (2005). An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Coaching Efficacy Scale for Coaches From the United States of America. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(3), 135-160.
  • 34. Pajares, F. (2007). Current Directions in Self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 1-49.
  • 35. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research. 66(4), 543- 576.
  • 36. Pitino, R. ve Forde, P. (2008). Rebound Rules: The Art of Success 2.0. New York: Harper Collins.
  • 37. Polit, D. F. ve Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 29(5), 489-497.
  • 38. Schermelleh-Engel, K. ve Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • 39. Short, S. E., Smiley, M. ve Ross-Stewart, L. (2005). The relationship between efficacy beliefs and imagery use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 380-394.
  • 40. Unutmaz, V. ve Gençer, T. (2017). Antrenör yeterlilik ölçeği II'nin Türkçe uyarlama çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 69-78.
  • 41. Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. 2006.
  • 42. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
  • 43. Tong, Y. ve Shanggui, S. (2004). A Study on general self-efficacy and subjective well-being of low ses college students in a Chinese university. College Students Journal, 38 (4), 637-642.
  • 44. Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Warners, A.L. ve Feltz, D.L. (2003): The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player efficacy in volleyball. Journal of Sport Behavior. 26(4). 396-407.
  • 45. Yılmaz, V. ve Çelik, H.E. (2009): LISREL ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi – I. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

A Coaching Self Efficacy Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 313 - 329, 02.10.2020

Öz

Coaching self-efficacy is explained as the belief of coaches about their professional abilities and capacities to how extent they can affect the learning and performance of their athletes. Coaching self-efficacy which is thought to have an impact on coach efficiency, should be measured with correct methods. The purpose of this study; to develop a measurement tool with psychometric properties that can measure coaching self-efficacy beliefs. The participants of the research consisted of 320 coaches (age 32,43± 8.06) who working actively. The item-total score relation, sample suitability coefficient, exploratory confirmatory factor analysis and Croanbah’s Alfa Reliability Coefficient were used in the validity and reliability analysis of the scale. According to the findings, the scale has emerged as a 5-dimensional structure with 21 items that explaining 61.487% of the total variance. First level CFA fit index values of the scale confirmed the item-factor structure. Croanbah’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient value of the whole scale is .86. As a result, it can be said that the Coach Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) is a valid and reliable measurement tool and can be used to determine the self-efficacy levels of the coaches.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Anshel, M. H. (2003). Sport psychology: From theory to practice. B. Cummings. Beswick, B. Focused for Soccer. Çeviren: Süren, E. Odak Noktamız Futbol. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi; 2016.
  • 2. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
  • 3. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
  • 4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
  • 5. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercice of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, In A. Bandura (Ed), Self-efficacy ın changing societies. New York: Cambridege University.
  • 6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • 7. 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.
  • 8. Beswick, B. (2016). Odak Noktamız Futbol. Çeviren: Süren, E. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • 9. Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
  • 10. Bentler, P.M. ve Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
  • 11. Browne, M.W. ve Cudeck, R (1993): Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p. 136-162.
  • 12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı-İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. 13. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi, s. 124.
  • 13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • 14. Byrne, B.M. ve Campbell, T.L. (1999): Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30: 555–574.
  • 15. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli İstatistik. SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • 16. Guillen, F. ve Sanchez, R. (2009). Competitive anxiety in expert female athletes: sources and intensity of anxiety in national team and first division spanish basketball players. Perception Motor Skills, 109 (2): 407–19.
  • 17. Frias, C.M. ve Dixon, R.A. (2005). Confirmatory factor structure and measurement in variance of the memory compensation questionare. Psychological Assessment, 17(2): 168-178.
  • 18. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E. ve Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776.
  • 19. Feltz, D. L. ve Weiss, M. R. (1982). Developing self-efficacy through sport. Journal of physical education, recreation & dance, 53(3), 24-36.
  • 20. Horn, T.S. (2002): Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (ed), Advances in sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  • 21. Jarvis, M. (2006). Sport psychology: A student's handbook. London, UK: Routledge.
  • 22. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • 23. Karakoç, F. Y. ve Dönmez, L. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 13(40), 39-49.
  • 24. Koçak, Ç. V. ve Güven, Ö. (2018). Voleybol antrenörü mesleki öz yeterlik ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(2), 162-177.
  • 25. Karagözoğlu, C. (2005). Sporda Psikolojik Destek, 1. Baskı. İstanbul: Morpa Yayınları.
  • 26. Malete, L. ve Feltz, D. (2000): The effects of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist. 14,(3), 410-417.
  • 27. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt,. C., Baumert, J. ve Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4): 311–360.
  • 28. Marsh, H.W., Balla J.R. ve Mcdonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness- of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 391-410.
  • 29. Marsh, H.W. ve Balla J. (1992). Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effects of sample size and model parsimony. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 28: 185-217.
  • 30. Martens, R., Vealey, R. S. ve Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
  • 31. Myers, N.D., Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Reckase, M.D., ve Hancock, G.R. (2008): The coaching efficacy scale II High school teams. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 1059-1076.
  • 32. Myers, N. D., Vargas-Tonsing, T. M. ve Feltz, D. L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6(1), 129-143.
  • 33. Myers, N. D., Wolfe, E. W. ve Feltz, D. L. (2005). An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Coaching Efficacy Scale for Coaches From the United States of America. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(3), 135-160.
  • 34. Pajares, F. (2007). Current Directions in Self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 1-49.
  • 35. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research. 66(4), 543- 576.
  • 36. Pitino, R. ve Forde, P. (2008). Rebound Rules: The Art of Success 2.0. New York: Harper Collins.
  • 37. Polit, D. F. ve Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 29(5), 489-497.
  • 38. Schermelleh-Engel, K. ve Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • 39. Short, S. E., Smiley, M. ve Ross-Stewart, L. (2005). The relationship between efficacy beliefs and imagery use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 380-394.
  • 40. Unutmaz, V. ve Gençer, T. (2017). Antrenör yeterlilik ölçeği II'nin Türkçe uyarlama çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 69-78.
  • 41. Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. 2006.
  • 42. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
  • 43. Tong, Y. ve Shanggui, S. (2004). A Study on general self-efficacy and subjective well-being of low ses college students in a Chinese university. College Students Journal, 38 (4), 637-642.
  • 44. Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Warners, A.L. ve Feltz, D.L. (2003): The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player efficacy in volleyball. Journal of Sport Behavior. 26(4). 396-407.
  • 45. Yılmaz, V. ve Çelik, H.E. (2009): LISREL ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi – I. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Toplam 45 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Spor Hekimliği
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Çalık Veli Koçak 0000-0002-1403-0812

Yayımlanma Tarihi 2 Ekim 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 5 Temmuz 2020
Kabul Tarihi 12 Ağustos 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

APA Koçak, Ç. V. (2020). Antrenör Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Gazi Beden Eğitimi Ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 25(4), 313-329.

Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi yılda dört kez yayımlanan bilimsel ve hakemli bir dergidir.


Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences is a scientific and peer-reviewed journal published quarterly.