Öğrenci Psikolojik İhtiyaçları İçin Müdür Desteği Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması Başlık

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, “Öğrenci Psikolojik İhtiyaçları İçin Müdür Desteği Ölçeğinin” (ÖPİMDÖ) Türkçeye ve Türk kültürüne uyarlanmasına yönelik geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. Araştırma tarama modeline uygun ve kesitsel bir araştırmadır. Ölçeğin orijinal formu dokuz madde ve tek alt faktörden oluşmaktadır. Bu kapsamda ilk olarak ölçeğin Türkçe çeviri işlemleri ardından kapsam ve dil geçerliğine ilişkin işlemler yürütülmüştür. Kapsam ve dil geçerliği sonrası oluşturulan Türkçe ölçek formuyla Türkiye’nin farklı illerinde görev yapan 322 öğretmenden elde edilen veriler üzerinden geçerlik ve güvenirliğe yönelik analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği bağlamında kullanılan açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ile birinci düzey ve ikinci düzey doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) sonuçları ölçeğin Türk kültürüne uyarlanmasının dokuz maddeden ve üç alt faktörden oluştuğuna işaret etmiştir. Ölçeğin alt faktörleri ilgili literatürle uyumlu olarak “Yetkinlik Desteği, Özerklik Desteği ve İlişkisel Destek” şeklinde adlandırılmıştır. Ayrıca, iç tutarlık katsayısı; yetkinlik desteği, özerklik desteği, ilişkisel destek ve ölçeğin tamamında sırasıyla 0.76, 0.90, 0.83, 0.90 olarak hesaplanmıştır Araştırma sonucunda “Öğrenci Psikolojik İhtiyaçları İçin Müdür Desteği Ölçeğinin” Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik açısından yeterli olduğu ve öğrencilerin psikolojik ihtiyaçları için müdür desteğini ölçmek amacıyla kullanılabileceği anlaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Geçerlik ve güvenirlik
• okul müdürü
• öğrenci psikolojik ihtiyacı
• ölçek uyarlama

Adaptation of Principal Support for Student Psychological Needs Scale into Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

In this study, validity and reliability analyses were conducted for the adaptation of the ‘Principal Support for Student Psychological Needs Scale’ (PSSPNS) into Turkish and Turkish culture. The research is a cross-sectional study in accordance with the survey model. The original form of the scale consists of nine items and one sub-factor. In this context, firstly, the Turkish translation of the scale was carried out and then the procedures related to content and language validity were carried out. After the content and language validity, validity and reliability analyses were carried out on the data obtained from 322 teachers working in different provinces of Turkey with the Turkish scale form. The results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and first-order and second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) used in the context of construct validity indicated that the adaptation of the scale to Turkish culture consisted of nine items and three sub-factors. The sub-factors of the scale were named as ‘Competence Support, Autonomy Support and Relational Support’ in line with the related literature. In addition, the internal consistency coefficient was calculated as 0.76, 0.90, 0.83, 0.90 for competence support, autonomy support, relatedness support and the whole scale respectively. As a result of the research, it was understood that the Turkish form of the ‘Principal Support for Students Psychological Needs Scale’ was sufficient in terms of validity and reliability and could be used to measure principal support for students’ psychological needs.

Keywords

• Validity and reliability
• school principal
• student psychological need
• scale adaptation

References

1. Adams, C. M., Ware, J. K., Miskell, R. C., & Forsyth, P. B. (2016). Self-regulatory climate: A positive attribute of public schools. Journal of Educational Research, 109, 169-180.
2. Adams, C. M., & Olsen, J. J. (2019). Principal support of student psychological needs and a functional instructional core. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-04-2018-0076 Adams, C. M., Olsen, J. J., & Ware, J. K. (2017). The School Principal and Student Learning Capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(4), 556-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17696556
3. Adams, C., & Adigun, O. B. (2021). Building a climate of faculty trust in students through principal support of student psychological needs. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(5), 598-614. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2020-0188
4. Aslanargun, E., & Tarku, E. (2014). Teachers’ expectations about supervision and guidance roles of supervisors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2014.012
5. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
6. Assor A., Kaplan H., & Roth G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students' engagement in school work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.
7. Babbie, E. (2020). The practice of social research. Cengage Learning.
8. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

9. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
10. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
11. Chang, I. H. (2011). A study of the relationships between distributed leadership, teacher academic optimism and student achievement in Taiwanese elementary schools. School Leadership and Management, 31(5), 491-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614945
12. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), The Minnesota Symposium on child psychology: Self-processes in development (pp. 43-77). Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863
14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In Liu, W., Wang, J. and Ryan R.M. (Eds), Building autonomous learners (pp. 89-29). Springer.
16. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
17. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
18. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
20. Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1017
21. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGram-Hill Publishing.
22. Furr, R. M. (2021). Psychometrics: An introduction (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
23. Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is conversation. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 76-84.
24. Gümüş, S., Hallinger, P., Cansoy, R., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2021). Instructional leadership in a centralized and competitive educational system: A qualitative meta-synthesis of research from Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(6), 702-720. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-04-2021-0073
25. Gün, F. (2021). Öğretim liderliği, mesleki iş birliği, kolektif sorumluluk ve akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi (Doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
27. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
28. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
29. Hambleton, R. K., & 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.
30. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). IAP Information Age Publishing.
31. Harris, A. (2012). Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of the principal. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211190961
32. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. SAS Institute.
33. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0924345980090203
34. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042
35. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
36. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Sage.
37. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
38. Hulpia, H., Devos, G. & van Keer, H. (2009). The influence of distributed leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 40-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670903231201
39. Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Sage Publications.
40. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
41. Kaplan, H., & Assor, A. (2012). Enhancing autonomy-supportive I–Thou dialogue in schools: Conceptualization and socio-emotional effects of an intervention program. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 15(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9178-2
42. Kline, P. (2015). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
43. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00879.x
44. Kusurkar, R. A., Cate, T. J., Vos, C. M., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2012). How motivation affects academic performance: A structural equation modeling analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(1), 57-69.
45. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., & Gordon, M. (2010). How successful leadership influences student learning: The second installment of a longer story, in Hargreaves A., Lieberman A., Fullan M., and Hopkins D. (Eds), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 611-629). Springer,
46. Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the ınteractivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-43-2-207-216
47. Lortie, D. C. (2009). School principal: Managing in pubic. University of Chicago Press.
48. Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010a). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
49. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010b). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation.
50. Lowenhaupt, J. R. (2014). The language of leadership: principal rhetoric in everyday practice. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 446-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2012-0118
51. McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 203–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15700760600805816
52. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü.
53. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2018). Turkey’s 2023 Education Vision. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf
54. Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive cultures in schools for students, teaches, and parents. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
55. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
56. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage
57. Park, J. H., Lee, I. H., & Cooc, N. (2019). The role of school-level mechanisms: How principal support, professional learning communities, collective responsibility, and group-level teacher expectations affect student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(5), 742-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821355
58. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation cognition and learning. Elsevier
59. Preacher, K. J., & McCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample size. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015210025234
60. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Deci E. and Ryan R. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-204). University of Rochester Press.
61. Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104319 Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
62. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(29), 147-169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
63. Reeve, J., Ryan, R., Deci, E. L., & Jang, H. (2008). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 223-244). Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
65. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. Deci and R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory research (pp. 3-36). University of Rochester Press.
66. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
67. Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 224-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104327
68. Sapnas, K. G. (2004). Letters to the editor: Determining adequate sample size. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(1), 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.t01-4-04003.x
69. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
70. Scott, B. (2001). Gordon Pask’s conversation theory: A domain independent constructivist model of human knowing. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 343-360.
71. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in 3 life domains: The role of parents' and teachers' autonomy support. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 34, 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y
72. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
73. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
74. Tsai, Y. M., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2) 460-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.460
75. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1161
76. Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest, 158(1S), S65-S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012