The Mindful Coping Scale: The Validity And Reliability Of Turkish Version

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 299 - 311, 24.12.2019

Zeynep Akkuş Çutuk Tuğba Türk

https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.591719

Öz

In this study, it was aimed to
make validity
and reliability analyses by adapting the mindful
coping scale into Turkish.  The scale was enhanced by
Tharaldsena and Bruc (2011). The sample group consisted of
283 high school students in the adaptation study. Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) was implemented for construct validity of the scale. DFA
results showed that chi-square value (x² = 639.87, N = 283, df = 221, p = 0.00)
was significant. Fit index values were found to be RMSEA=.076, CFI=.88,
IFI=.88, GFI=.85, SRMR=.074. The reliability of the scale was calculated by
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient and Item Total Correlation Coefficient. The Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability
Coefficient of the mindful coping scale was found to be .71 for the awareness
sub-dimension, .79 for the distraction sub-dimension, .72 for the negative
emotion prevention sub-dimension, and .71 for the self-revealing sub-dimension.
It was determined that the Mindful Coping Scale of Item-Total Correlations was
.31-.57 for the awareness sub-dimension, .33-.69 for the distraction
sub-dimension, .38-.53 for the sub-dimension of prevention of negative
emotions, that it ranged from 38 to .59 for constructive self-assertion
sub-dimension. According
to the results of the study, it can be
said that mindful
coping scale is a valid and reliable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mindful coping, validity and reliability

Kaynakça

• Alidina, S. (2010). Mindfulness for dummies. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
• Alidina,S. ve Marshall, J.J. (2013). Mindfulness workbook for dummies. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
• Averill, J. R. (1992). The structural bases of emotional behavior: A metatheoretical analysis. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 1–24.
• Bedel, A., Işık, E. ve Hamarta, E. (2014). Ergenler İçin Başa Çıkma Ölçeğinin (EBÇÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması, Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 227-235.
• Bishop, S.R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N.D., Carmody, J…………& Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operatiınal definition. Clinical psychology: Science and Practice, 11: 230-241.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (Genişletilmiş 21. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
• Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. 2007. Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18: 211-237.
• Bruna, J. (2018). The essential guidebook to mındfulness in recovery. Las Vegas: Central Recovery Press.
• Germer, C. K. (2005a). Mindfulness: What is it? What does it matter? In C. K. Germer, R. D. Siegel, & P. R. Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy (pp. 3–27). New York: Guilford Press.
• Germer, C. K. (2005b). Teaching mindfulness in therapy. In C. K. Germer, R. D. Sie-gel, & P. R. Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy (pp. 113–129). New York: Guilford Press.
• Halland, E., De Vibe, M., Solhaug, I., Friborg, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., Tyssen, R., ... & Bjørndal, A. (2015). Mindfulness training improves problem-focused coping in psychology and medical students: Results from a randomized controlled trial. College Student Journal, 49(3), 387-398.
• Harvey, P. (2000). An introduction to Buddhist ethics: Foundations, values and issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 55-65.
• Jacobs, S. J., & Blustein, D. L. (2008). Mindfulness as a coping mechanism for employment uncertainty. The Career Development Quarterly, 57(2), 174-180.
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (2001). Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. London: Piatkus Books.
• Kabat‐Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness‐based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 10(2), 144-156.
• Marcoulides, G. ve Schumacher, R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates, Publishers.
• Mayer, J. D., Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K. (1997). Conation, affect, and cognition in personality. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Schermelleh, Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Of Psychological Research Online, Volume: 8 (2), pp: 23-74.
• Schumacher, R. ve Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structual equation modelling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates, Publishers.
• Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları, Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları.
• Tharaldsena, K.B. ve Bruc, E. (2011). Validation of the mindful coping scale. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 16(1), 87-103.
• Thondup, T. (1996). The healing power of mind. London, UK: Penguin.
• Westen, D. (1999). Psychology: mind, brain, and culture (2nd ed). New York: Wiley.