The Turkish Adaptation of the Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences: A Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 26 - 44, 05.01.2021

Ömer Özer İlhan Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.790673

Cited By: 4

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt the Cooper-Norcross Preference Inventory to Turkish. Cooper-Norcross Preference Inventory is a self-report tool that evaluates individuals' preferences regarding roles in the psychological help process. The study group of the research consists of 536 (female = 310, male = 226) university students. During the adaptation process of the measurement tool, translation and retranslation studies were carried out by taking the original form into account, and data were collected from four different universities with a form based on expert opinions. Confirmatory factor analysis was used in the analysis of the data. According to the analysis results, it was seen that the original factor structure of the measuring tool was confirmed (X²/ df (543.398 / 129) = 3.59, RMSEA (0.071; 0.08) .069, CFI .912, IFI .912, GFI .906, SRMR .071). The measurement tool consists of four sub-dimensions named Therapist Directiveness vs. Client Directiveness; Emotional Intensity vs. Emotional Reserve; Past Orientation vs. Present Orientation and Warm Support vs. Focused Challenge. Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficients for the sub-dimensions range between .55 and .65. In order to reveal the validity and reliability of the scale tool, test-retest, bottom-top 27% difference between groups and similar scale validity methods were used. The findings show that the Cooper-Norcross Preference Inventory is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to evaluate the preferences of university students regarding the psychological counseling process.

Keywords

preferences, counseling preferences, university students

Cooper-Norcross Tercih Envanteri Türkçe Uyarlaması : Bir Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Cooper-Norcross Tercih Envanterinin Türkçeye uyarlanmasıdır. Cooper-Norcross Tercih Envanteri bireylerin psikolojik yardım sürecindeki rollere ilişkin tercihlerini değerlendiren bir özbildirim aracıdır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu 536 (kadın =310, erkek = 226) üniversite öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Ölçme aracının uyarlama sürecinde orijinal form dikkate alınarak çeviri ve tekrar çeviri çalışması yapılmış, uzman görüşlerine dayanarak düzenlenen form ile dört farklı üniversiteden veri toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizi kapsamında doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre ölçme aracının orijinal faktör yapısının doğrulandığı görülmüştür ( X²/ sd (543.398 / 129)=3.59, RMSEA (0.071; 0.08) .069, CFI .912, IFI .912, GFI .906, SRMR .071 ). Ölçme aracı Danışman Yönlendiriciliğine Karşı Danışan Yönlendiriciliği , Duygusal Yoğunluğa Karşı Duygusal Sınırlılık, Geçmiş Zaman Yönelimliliğe Karşı Şimdiki Zaman Yönelimlilik ve Samimi Desteğe Karşı Odaklı Yüzleştirme olarak isimlendirilen dört alt boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Alt boyutlara ilişkin Cronbach Alfa içtutarlık katsayıları .55 ile .65 arasında değişmektedir. Ölçme aracının geçerlik ve güvenilirliğinin ortaya konması amacı ile test tekrar test, alt üst %27’lik gruplar arası farkın değerlendirilmesi ve benzer ölçek geçerliği yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Ölçme aracı toplam puan vermemekte her bir alt boyut ayrı ayrı hesaplanmaktadır. Bir alt boyutta puanın yükselmesi alt boyut isimlendirmesinde ilk ifade edilen alana ilişkin tercihin daha baskın olduğunu göstermektedir. Elde edilen bulgular Cooper- Norcross Tercih Envanteri’nin üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik danışma sürecine ilişkin tercihlerini değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

psikolojik danışma tercihleri, üniversite öğrencileri, tercihler

References

• APA (2006). American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence‐Based Practice. Evidence‐based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/evidence-based-statement.pdf
• Cooper, M., & Norcross, J. C. (2016). A brief, multidimensional measure of clients’ therapy preferences: The Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP). International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(1), 87–98. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.08.003
• Elkin, I., Yamaguchi, J., Arnkoff, D., Glass, C., Sotsky, S., & Krupnick, J. (1999). “Patient-treatment fit” and early engagement in therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 9(4), 437–451. doi: 10.1080/10503309912331332851
• Glass, C. R., Arnkoff, D. B., & Shapiro, S. J. (2001). Expectactaions and preferences. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(4), 455-461.
• Graff, F. S., Griffin, M. L., & Weiss, R. D. (2008). Predictors of dropout from group therapy among patients with bipolar and substance use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 94(1-3), 272-275.
• Hambleton, R.K. ve Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology,1(1), 1-30. Retrieved from http://www.jattjournal.com/
• Hardin, S. I., & Yanico, B. J. (1983). Counselor gender, type of problem, and expectations about counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(2), 294–297. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.30.2.294
• Hatchett, G. T. (2015). Development of the preferences for college counseling inventory. Journal of College Counseling, 18(1), 37–48. doi :10.1002/j.2161-1882.2015.00067.x
• Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
• Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
• Kwan, B. M., Dimidjian, S., & Rizvi, S. L. (2010). Treatment preference, engagement, and clinical improvement in pharmacotherapy versus psychotherapy for depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(8), 799–804. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.04.003
• Koch, L. C. (2001). The preferences and anticipations of people referred for vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(2), 76–86. doi: 10.1177/003435520104400204
• Kocsis, J. H., Leon, A. C., Markowitz, J. C., Manber, R., Arnow, B., Klein, D. N., & Thase, M. E. (2009). Patient preference as a moderator of outcome for chronic forms of major depressive disorder treated with nefazodone, cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy, or their combination. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 70(3), 354–361. doi: 10.4088/jcp.08m04371
• Levy-Berg, A., Sandahl, C., & Clinton, D. (2008). The relationship of treatment preferences and experiences to outcome in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 81, 247–259. doi:10.1348/147608308X297113
• Lin, P., Campbell, D. G., Chaney, E. F., Liu, C.-F., Heagerty, P., Felker, B. L., & Hedrick, S. C. (2005). The influence of patient preference on depression treatment in primary care. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30(2), 164–173. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm3002_9
• Lüleci, B., Soylu, Y. ve Canbulat, N. (2015). Psikolojik Danışma Yardımına İlişkin Beklentiler Ölçeği’nin Geliştirilmesi. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 5(3), 313–326. doi:10.14527/pegegog.2015.017
• Malosso, M. S. (2019). Adaptação transcultural para o português e validação de duas ferramentas de avaliação das preferências do cliente em psicoterapia: C-NIP E PEX. P1 (Unpublished master thesis). ISPA- Instituto Universitario, Lisboa, Portugal.
• McLeod, J. (2012). What do clients want from therapy? A practice-friendly review of research into client preferences. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 14(1), 19-32.
• Mergl, R., Henkel, V., Allgaier, A.-K., Kramer, D., Hautzinger, M., Kohnen, R., … Hegerl, U. (2011). Are treatment preferences relevant in response to serotonergic antidepressants and cognitive-behavioral therapy in depressed primary care patients results from a randomized controlled trial including a patients’ choice arm. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 80(1), 39–47. doi: 10.1159/000318772
• Özer, Ö., & Altınok, A. (2015). Üniversite psikolojik danışma merkezinde psikolojik danışma sürecini erken bırakmayı yordayan faktörler. Bilişsel Davranışçı Psikoterapi ve Araştırma Dergisi, 1, 18-25.
• Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1981). The influence of Black students’ racial identity attitudes on preferences for counselor’s race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(3), 250–257. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.28.3.250
• Sandell, R., Clinton, D., Frövenholt, J., & Bragesjö, M. (2011). Credibility clusters, preferences, and helpfulness beliefs for specific forms of psychotherapy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84(4), 425–441. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.2010.02010.x
• Scholl, M. B. (2002). Predictors of client preferences for counselor roles. Journal of College Counseling, 5, 124–134. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2002.tb00214.x
• Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2005). University counseling center clients’ expressed preferences for counselors: A four year archival exploration. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 19(3), 55–68. doi: 10.1300/J035v19n03_06
• Swift, J. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 368–381. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20553
• Swift, J. K., Callahan, J. L., & Vollmer, B. M. (2011). Preferences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 155–165. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20759
• Swift, J. K., Callahan, J. L., Tompkins, K. A., Connor, D. R., & Dunn, R. (2015). A delay-discounting measure of preference for racial/ethnic matching in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 52(3), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000019
• Swift, J. K., Callahan, J. L., Cooper, M., & Parkin, S. R. (2018). The impact of accommodating client preference in psychotherapy: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), 1924–1937. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22680
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Wierzbicki, M., & Pekarik, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of psychotherapy dropout. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24(2), 190–195. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.24.2.190