Mizaçsal Umut Duygusu Ölçeği: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yeni Bir Ölçeğin Psikometrik İncelemesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Feldman ve Jazaieri (2024) tarafından umudun duygusal boyutunu ölçmek amacıyla geliştirilen Trait Emotion Hope Scale’in (TEHS) Türkçeye uyarlanmış hali olan Mizaçsal Umut Duygusu Ölçeği’nin (MUDÖ) psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Çalışma, açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) için 250 kişilik ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) için 365 kişilik iki ayrı örneklemden elde edilen verilerle yürütülmüştür. AFA sonuçları, TEHS’in Türkçe formunun tek boyutlu bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ölçek maddelerinin faktör yükleri .75 ile .86 arasında değişirken, toplam varyansın %61.6’sı açıklanmıştır. DFA sonuçları ise modelin iyi uyum sağladığını göstermiştir (CFI = .99, RMSEA = .072). Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayıları (Cronbach alfa ve McDonald’s omega), her iki örneklemde de .90 olarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik kapsamında, MUDÖ’nün Sürekli Umut Ölçeği, Azimli Umut Ölçeği ve Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği ile pozitif; Depresyon-Anksiyete-Stres Ölçeği ile negatif; On Maddelik Kişilik Ölçeği’nin dışadönüklük ve uyumluluk boyutlarıyla ise zayıf düzeyde pozitif ilişkiler gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Cinsiyete göre yapılan ölçme değişmezliği analizlerinde yapısal ve kısmen metrik değişmezliğin sağlandığı belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, MUDÖ’nün umudun duygusal boyutunu ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu desteklemektedir.

Keywords

• Mizaçsal umut
• duygusal umut
• ölçek uyarlama
• psikometrik özellikler

Trait Hope Emotion Scale: A Psychometric Evaluation of a New Scale in a Turkish Sample

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish adaptation of the Trait Emotion Hope Scale (TEHS), developed by Feldman and Jazaieri (2024), renamed as the Mizaçsal Umut Duygusu Ölçeği (MUDÖ) in Turkish. Data were collected from two independent samples (N=250 for EFA; N=365 for CFA). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a unidimensional structure for the MUDÖ, with item factor loadings ranging from .75 to .86, explaining 61.6% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good model fit (CFI=.99, RMSEA=.072). Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) were .90 in both samples. For criterion validity, the MUDÖ showed positive correlations with the Dispositional Hope Scale, Persevering Hope Scale, and Psychological Well-Being Scale; negative correlations with the Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale; and weak positive correlations with extraversion and agreeableness dimensions of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Measurement invariance analyses indicated structural and partial metric invariance across genders. Findings support the MUDÖ as a valid and reliable tool for assessing the emotional dimension of hope in Turkish populations.

Keywords

• Trait Emotion Hope
• Emotional Hope
• Scale Adaptation
• Psychometric Properties

References

1. Atak, H. (2013). On-Maddeli Kişilik Ölçeği'nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, 50(4), 312-319. https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.y6128
2. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ² approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(2), 296-298.
3. Bernardo, A. B. (2010). Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope. Personality and individual differences, 49(8), 944-949. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
4. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner and J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Sage.
5. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., and Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
6. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
7. Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness‐of‐fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

9. Costello, A. B., and Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7.
10. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., and Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
11. Feldman, D. B., and Jazaieri, H. (2024). Feeling hopeful: development and validation of the trait emotion hope scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1322807
12. Feldman, D. B., and Snyder, C. R. (2005). Hope and the meaningful life: Theoretical and empirical associations between goal–directed thinking and life meaning. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(3), 401-421.
13. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
14. Fornell, C., and 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
15. Gallagher, M. W., and Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive expectancies and mental health: Identifying the unique contributions of hope and optimism. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 548-556.
16. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., and Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
18. Hambleton, R. K., and 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), 1-13.
19. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., and Spielberger, C. D. (2004). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 15-50). Psychology Press.
20. Holgado–Tello, F. P., Chacón–Moscoso, S., Barbero–García, I., and Vila–Abad, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality and Quantity, 44(1), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
21. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
22. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151.
23. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
24. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
25. Krafft, A. M. (2025). Basic beliefs of hope: a cross-cultural comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1520887. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1520887
26. Kuşci, İ., and Belen, H. (Under Review). Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Persevering Hope Scale: A Rasch analysis study. BMC Psychology. (Under Review)
27. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
28. Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
29. Lovibond, P. F., and Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
30. Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., and Pais-Ribeiro, J. L. (2011). Building hope for the future: A program to foster strengths in middle-school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 139-152.
31. McAdams, D. P. (1995). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. Guilford Press.
32. Meade, A. W., and Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575461
33. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
34. Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
35. Pleeging, E. (2022). Measuring hope: Validity of short versions of four popular hope scales. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 56(6), 4437–4464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01316-w
36. Rueger, S. Y., Worthington, Jr, E. L., Davis, E. B., Chen, Z. J., Cowden, R. G., Moloney, J. M., and Glowiak, K. J. (2023). Development and initial validation of the Persevering Hope Scale: Measuring wait-power in four independent samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(1), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2032100
37. Sarıçam, H. (2018). The psychometric properties of Turkish version of Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) in health control and clinical samples. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 7(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.5455/JCBPR.274847
38. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, 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. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249-275.
40. Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., and Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570-585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570
41. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
42. Tarhan, S., ve Bacanlı, H. (2015). Sürekli Umut Ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 3(1), 1-14.
43. Telef, B. B. (2013). Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3), 374-384.
44. Vandenberg, R. J., and Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
45. Worley, J. A. (2019). Locus of Hope. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1-4). Springer, Cham.