Academic Buoyancy: A Scale Development and Validation Study

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 298 - 336, 29.03.2024

Meltem İpek Oner Ayşe Münire Erden

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1417508

Öz

The primary aim of this study was to develop a reliable and valid tool for evaluating students' academic buoyancy. After the exploratory factor analysis, a structure comprising 26 items and five factors was formed. These factors were identified as commitment, composure, confidence, coordination, and control, collectively explaining 60.20% of the overall variance. CFA was performed, and the fit index values were found as follows: χ2=815.113, df=286, (χ2/ df =2.85), RMSEA=.07, CFI=.88, GFI=.85, IFI=.88. It was concluded that all values obtained from CFA analysis are sufficient to verify the structure. It was also supposed that the 26 items-five factor structure was confirmed as a model. Related to the validity and reliability studies of the scale, the convergent and discriminant validity were checked. Each factor demonstrated Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .90 to .71. After examining all the results, it was found out that the scale is valid and reliable for measuring students' academic buoyancy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Academic Buoyancy, 5Cs of Academic Buoyancy, Scale Development, Scale Validation

Akademik Engelleri Yönetme Becerisi: Ölçek Geliştirme ve Doğrulama Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırma ile öğrencilerin akademik engelleri yönetme becerisini ölçen geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonrası beş faktör altında 26 maddeden oluşan bir ölçek oluşmuştur. Bu faktörler, bağlılık, soğukkanlılık, özgüven, koordinasyon ve kontrol olarak belirlenmiş ve toplam varyansın %60,20'sini açıklamaktadır. Ölçeğin faktör yapısının doğrulanması amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış, χ2 = 815.113, df = 286, (χ2 / df = 2.85), RMSEA = .07, CFI = .88, GFI = .85, IFI = .88 olduğu belirlenmiş ve elde edilen bu değerlerin yapının doğrulanması için yeterli olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarıyla ilgili olarak, yakınsak ve ayırt edici geçerlik kontrol edilmiştir. Her faktör için .90 ile .71 arasında değişen Cronbach alfa katsayıları bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarına ilişkin tüm sonuçlar incelendiğinde ölçeğin öğrencilerin akademik engelleri yönetme becerisini ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akademik Engelleri Yönetme Becerisi, Akademik Engelleri Yönetme Becerisinin 5C, Ölçek Geliştirme, Ölçek Doğrulama

Kaynakça

• Barnett, P. A. (2012). High school students’ academic buoyancy: longitudinal changes in motivation, cognitive engagement, and affect in English and math. Fordham University.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2019). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi
• Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
• Collie, R. J., Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., & Papworth, B. (2017). Academic buoyancy mediates academic anxiety’s effects on learning strategies: an investigation of English- and Chinese-speaking Australian students. Educational Psychology, 37(8), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1291910
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik, SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3. baskı). [Multivariate statistics, SPSS, and LISREL applications for social sciences (3rd edition)]. Pegem Akademi.
• Datu, J. A. D., & Yang, W. (2016). Psychometric validity and gender invariance of the academic buoyancy scale in the Philippines: A construct validation approach. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(3), 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916674423
• DeVellis, R.F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage.
• Fokkema, M., & Greiff, S. (2017). How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble: Overfitting in the assessment of internal structure and some editorial thoughts on it. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000460
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
• Gurbuz, S. (2019). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Seçkin Publishing.
• Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Scientific Software International; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of structural equation modeling (4th edition). Guilford Publications.
• Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001706997
• Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 53–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002
• Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and cognate constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934639
• Martin, A. J., Colmar, S. H., Davey, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). Longitudinal modelling of academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the 5Cs hold up over time? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910x486376
• Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model for student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 46(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410204600104
• Martin, A. J. (2006). The motivation and engagement scale. Lifelong Achievement Group.
• Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 239–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003
• Martin, A. J. (2012). Academic buoyancy and academic outcomes: Towards a further understanding of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), students without ADHD, and academic buoyancy itself. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 86-107.
• Meydan, C.H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve AMOS uygulamalari. [Structural equation modeling and AMOS applications]. Detay Yayıncılık.
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Wiley.
• Panjwani, D. & Aqil, Z. (2020). Academic buoyancy scale: A factor analytical study. Journal of Information and Computational Science, 10(1), 772-780.
• Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781
• Putwain, D. W., & Daly, A. L. (2013). Do clusters of test anxiety and academic buoyancy differentially predict academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.010
• Putwain, D. W., Connors, L., Symes, W., & Douglas-Osborn, E. (2012). Is academic buoyancy anything more than adaptive coping? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 25(3), 349-358.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd edition). Routledge.
• Smith, M. (2020). Becoming Buoyant. Routledge.
• Strickland, C. R. (2015). Academic buoyancy as an explanatory factor for college student achievement and retention. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
• Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8001_18
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics: Pearson new international edition (6th edition). Pearson.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1996). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme klavuzu. [The guide to likert type scale development] Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
• Verrier, D., Johnson, S., & Reidy, L. (2018). The teacher academic buoyancy scale: Is it possible to keep TABS on students’ Academic Buoyancy? International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5(4), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.463871
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
• Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2012). University physics with modern physics (13th edition). Pearson Education.