Adaptation of the Global Citizenship Scale–Short Form (GCS-SF) into Turkish

Abstract

In present study, we aimed to adapt the Global Citizenship Scale–Short Form (GCS–SF), which was developed by Moaris and Ogden (2011) and its short form was created by Lo et al. (2016), into Turkish. Contrary to the previous studies in which the full version of the global citizenship scale was adapted into Turkish, the fact that the abbreviated form of the scale will be adapted into Turkish in current research constitutes the original value of the paper. We conducted our research on 582 undergraduates. Before the analysis, we removed the data from outliers and performed psychometric analyses on a data file of 563 participants. We applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to provide evidence for the validity of the measurements acquired with the Turkish version of the GCS–SF. The CFA outputs revealed that the fit indices remained within acceptable limits and that the three-dimensional structure in the original form of the scale was confirmed in Turkish culture with the factor loadings ranged .39 to .81. Reliability analysis showed that McDonald’s ω coefficients of the whole scale and its sub-dimensions ranged from .65 to .87. As a result of item analysis, we determined that the single item-rest of items correlations varied between .33 and .77. All these results signify that the GCS–SF’s Turkish version yields valid and reliable measures.

Keywords

• Global citizenship
• global citizenship scale
• short form of global citizenship scale
• scale adaptation.

Küresel Vatandaşlık Ölçeği Kısa Formunun (KVÖ-KF) Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Moaris ve Ogden (2011) tarafından geliştirilen ve kısa formu Lo vd. (2016) tarafından oluşturulan küresel vatandaşlık ölçeği (KVÖ–KF) Türkçeye uyarlanmıştır. Küresel vatandaşlık ölçeğinin uzun formunun Türkçeye uyarlandığı önceki çalışmaların aksine bu araştırmada ölçeğin kısa formunun Türkçeye uyarlanması çalışmanın özgün değerini oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma 582 lisans öğrencisinin katılımı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analiz öncesinde veri seti uç değerlerden arındırılmış ve psikometrik analizler 563 katılımcıdan oluşan veri dosyası üzerinden gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada KVÖ-KF’nin Türkçe formu ile elde edilen ölçümlerin geçerliliğine kanıt sağlamak için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) uygulanmıştır. DFA sonucunda uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir sınırlar içerisinde kaldığı belirlenmiş ve ölçeğin orijinal formundaki üç boyutlu yapının Türk kültürü için de geçerliği olduğu saptanmıştır. Rapor edilen faktör yüklerinin ise .39 ile .81 arasında değiştiği tespit edilmiştir. Güvenirlik analizi, ölçeğin geneli ve alt boyutlar için kestirilen McDonald’s ω katsayılarının .65 ile .87 arasında sıralandığını ortaya koymuştur. Madde analizi sonuçlarına göre madde korelasyonları .33 ile .77 arasında yer almıştır. Tüm bu sonuçlar KVÖ–KF’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir ölçümler ürettiğini yansıtmaktadır.

Keywords

• Küresel vatandaşlık
• küresel vatandaşlık ölçeği
• küresel vatandaşlık ölçeği kısa formu
• ölçek uyarlama

References

1. Akın, A., Sarıçam, H., Akın, Ü., Yıldız, B., Demir, T., & Kaya, M. (2014, 28 – 30 April). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the global citizenship scale [Conference presentation]. The International Social Studies Education Symposium-III. Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
2. Akkari, A., & Maleq, K. (2020). Global citizenship education: Recognizing diversity in a global world. In A. Akkari & K. Maleq (Eds.), Global Citizenship Education Critical and International Perspectives, (pp. 3–13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44617-8
3. Aybek, E. C. (2021). Data preparation for factor analysis. https://shiny.eptlab.com/dp2fa/
4. Aybek, E. C., & Toraman, Ç. (2022). How many response categories are sufficient for Likert type scales? An empirical study based on the item response theory. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1132931
5. Balbağ, N. L. (2016). Elementary teachers’ and students’ perceptions of global citizenship in the social studies course [Doctoral thesis]. Anadolu University.
6. Braskamp, L., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. C. (2008). Global Perspective Inventory (GPI): Its purpose, construction, potential uses, and psychometric characteristics. Global Perspective Institute. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.584.9216&rep=rep1&type=pdf
7. Bryant, F. B., King, S. P., & Smart, C. M. (2007). Multivariate statistical strategies for construct validation in positive psychology. In A. D. Ong & M. H. M. Van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology (pp. 61–82). New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. New York: Routledge.

9. DeVellis, R. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
10. Dill, J. S. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. New York: Routledge.
11. D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA: America Counseling Association.
12. Dyrness, A. (2021) Rethinking global citizenship education with/ for transnational youth. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(4), 443-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1897001
13. Estellés, M. & Fischman, G. E. (2020). Who needs global citizenship education? A review of the literature on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120920254
14. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
15. Gezer, M. (2022). The thematic content analysis of the scales used in citizenship education. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(1), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.884855
16. Göl, E. (2013). The examination of global citizenship attitude levels of social studies nominee instructors according to different variants [Master thesis]. Ahi Evran University.
17. Hagtvet, K. A., & Sipos, K. (2016). Creating short forms for construct measures: The role of exchangeable forms. Pedagogika, 66(6), 689–713. https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2016.346
18. International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
19. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2021). Nicel verilerin toplanması ve analizi. In B. Çetin, M. İlhan, & M. G. Şahin, (Eds.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri: Temel kavramlar, ilkeler ve süreçler [Research methods in education: Basic concepts, principles and processes], (pp. 161–200). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publications.
20. İlhan, M., & Güler, N. (2017). The number of response categories and the reverse scored item problem in Likert-type scales: A study with the Rasch model. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 8(3), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.321057
21. JASP Team (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.2) [Computer software].
22. Kleka, P., & Soroko, E. (2018). How to avoid the sins of questionnaires abridgement? Survey Research Methods, 12(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2018.v12i2.7224
23. Koğar, H. (2022). Which scale short form development method is better? A comparison of ACO, TS, and SCOFA. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(3), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.946231
24. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K. Kim, S-W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing Character and Values for Global Citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
25. Lo, K. W. K., Kwan, K. P., Chan, S. C. F., & Ngai, G. (2016, 10–12 January). Cross-cultural validation of the global citizenship scale for measuring impacts of international service-learning in Hong Kong setting [Conference presentation]. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 3rd International Conference on Service-Learning, Hong Kong.
26. Moaris, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315310375308
27. Padilla, M. A., & Divers, J. (2015). A Comparison of composite reliability estimators: Coefficient omega confidence intervals in the current literature. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(3), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415593776
28. Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
29. Rae, G. (2006). Correcting coefficient alpha for correlated errors: Is αK a lower bound to reliability? Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 56–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146621605280355
30. Reyzen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749
31. Schattle, H. (2009). Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice. In R. Lewin (Eds.), The handbook of practice an research in study abroad, (pp. 3–20). New York: Routledge.
32. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & 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.
33. Schroeders, U., Wilhelm, O., & Olaru, G. (2016). Meta-heuristics in short scale construction: Ant colony optimization and genetic algorithm. PLoS ONE, 11(11), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167110
34. Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation models: Basic concepts and applications. Turkish Psychological Articles, 3(6), 49–74. Retrieved from https://www.psikolog.org.tr/tr/yayinlar/dergiler/1031828/tpy1301996120000000m000225.pdf
35. Şahin, İ. F., & Çermik, F. (2014). Turkish adaptation of global citizenship scale: Reliability and validity. Eastern Geographical Review, 19(31), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.17295/dcd.30443
36. Şahin, M., Şahin, S., & Göğebakan Yıldız, D. (2016). The curriculum of social studies education and world citizenship: From perspective of prospective teachers. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31(2), 369–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016015386
37. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). New York: Pearson.
38. Tibbitts, F. (2016). Curriculum development and review for democratic citizenship and human rights education. Council of Europe & UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000234386
39. Tutkun, T. (2019). Adapting global citizenship scale to Turkish Language. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 13(27) 46–63. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.185.3
40. UNESCO. (2014). Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227729
41. Van Gent, M., Carabain, C., De Goede, I., Boonstoppel, E., & Hogeling, L. (2013). The development of the Global Citizenship Inventory for adolescents. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 5(2), 71–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.05.2.05
42. Van Ongevalle, J., & Carabain, C. (2014). More or less global citizenship? When measuring becomes learning. NCDO. http://kaleidosresearch.nl/publication/more-or-less-global-citizenship-when-measuring-becomes-learning/
43. Whitley, B. E., & Kite M. E. (2013). Principles of research in behavioral science. New York: Routledge.
44. Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
45. Yurdugül, H. (2006). The comparison of reliability coefficients in parallel, tau-equivalent, and congeneric measurements. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000127
46. Zimmerman, D. W., Zumbo, B. D., & Lalonde, C. (1993). Coefficient alpha as an estimate of test reliability under violation of two assumptions. Educational and Psychological