Adaptation of the Loyola Generativity Scale and the Generative Behavior Checklist into Turkish: A Study of Validity and Reliability

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish versions of the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) and the Generative Behavior Checklist (GBC). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the construct validity of the scales, and internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The sample of the study consisted of a total of 543 participants, including 364 females (67%) and 179 males (33%). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure of the LGS, comprising Positive Generativity and Generative Doubt, with a total of 20 items (χ²/df = 2.17; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI = 0.041–0.055; SRMR = 0.05). Similarly, the single-factor structure of the GBC, consisting of 38 items, was also supported by confirmatory factor analysis (χ²/df = 1.67; p < 0.001; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.04, 90% CI = 0.032–0.039; SRMR = 0.05). To assess convergent validity, the Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS) was employed. The results indicated significant Pearson product–moment correlations between the LGS and the GBC and the PWBS, with coefficients of 0.40 and 0.62, respectively (p < 0.01). In addition, a significant Pearson product–moment correlation of 0.27 (p < 0.01) was found between the GBC and the PWBS. Reliability analyses yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.87 for the LGS and 0.92 for the GBC. The findings indicate that the LGS and the GBC are valid and reliable instruments for assessing generativity in emerging adulthood.

Keywords

• Generativity
• Well-being
• Emerging Adulthood
• Validity and Reliability

Loyola Üretkenlik Ölçeği ve Üretken Davranış Kontrol Listesi’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Loyola Üretkenlik Ölçeği (LÜÖ) ile Üretken Davranış Kontrol Listesi’nin (ÜDK) Türkçe formlarının psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Ölçeklerin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini test etmek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile iç tutarlılığın belirlenmesinde Cronbach alfa katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi, 364’ü (%67) kadın ve 179’u (%33) erkek olmak üzere toplam 543 katılımcıdan oluşmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları, LÜÖ’nün Pozitif Üretkenlik ve Üretken Şüphe olmak üzere iki faktörlü ve 20 maddeden oluşan yapısını desteklemiştir (χ²/df = 2,17; CFI = 0,91; TLI = 0,90; RMSEA = 0,05, %90 GA = 0,041–0,055; SRMR = 0,05). Benzer şekilde, ÜDK’nin tek faktörlü ve 38 maddeden oluşan yapısı da doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile doğrulanmıştır (χ²/df = 1,67; p < 0,001; CFI = 0,92; TLI = 0,91; RMSEA = 0,04, %90 GA = 0,032–0,039; SRMR = 0,05). Benzer ölçek geçerliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği (PİOÖ) kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, LÜÖ ile ÜDK ve PİOÖ arasında sırasıyla 0,40 ve 0,62 (p < 0,01) düzeyinde; ÜDK ile PİOÖ arasında ise 0,27 (p < 0,01) düzeyinde anlamlı Pearson momentler çarpımı korelasyonları elde edilmiştir. Güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda Cronbach alfa katsayıları LÜÖ için 0,87, ÜDK için ise 0,92 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, LÜÖ ve ÜDK’nin beliren yetişkinlik döneminde üretkenliği ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir ölçme araçları olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Üretkenlik
• İyi Oluş
• Beliren Yetişkinlik
• Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik

References

1. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.
2. Bakan, D. (1967). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. The University of Chicago Press.
3. Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P. ve Sakaeda, A. R. (2005). Interpreting the good life: Growth memories in the lives of mature, happy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 130–140.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Çakmak, E. K. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
5. Comrey, A. L., ve Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Creswell, J. W. ve Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
7. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
8. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W. ve Oishi, S. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y.

9. Einolf, C. J. (2014). Stability and change in generative concern: Evidence from a longitudinal survey. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.04.003.
10. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2. baskı). Norton Inc.
11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. ve Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8. baskı). McGraw-Hill.
12. Frensch, K., Pratt, M. ve Norris, J. (2007). Foundations of generativity: Personal and family correlates of emerging adults’ generative life-story themes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.005.
13. George, D. ve Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4. baskı). Allyn & Bacon.
14. Gökçe, H. (2017). Bir sosyal politika olarak evlât edindirmenin toplumsal direnç kaynakları. Uluslararası Beşerî ve Sosyal Bilimler İnceleme Dergisi, 1(1), 19–38.
15. Grossbaum, M. F. ve Bates, G. W. (2002a). Correlates of psychological well-being at midlife: The role of generativity, agency and communion, and narrative themes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 120–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000654.
16. Grossbaum, R. ve Bates, S. (2002b). Generativity and well-being in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 70(5), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05012.
17. Guo, H. ve Ngai, S. S.-Y. (2021). Validation of the Generative Acts Scale-Chinese Version (GAS-C) among middle-aged and older adults as grandparents in mainland China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 9950. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18199950.
18. Hambleton, R. K. ve Bollwark, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 3–32.
19. Hastings, L., Griesen, J., Hoover, R., Creswell, J. ve Dlugosh, L. (2015). Generativity in college students: Comparing and explaining the impact of mentoring. Journal of College Student Development, 56(7), 651–669.
20. Hastings, L. J. ve Sunderman, H. M. (2019). Generativity and socially responsible leadership among college student leaders who mentor. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.12806/V18/I3/R1.
21. Hastings, L. J., Sunderman, H. M., ve Sellon, A. (2024). Applying methodological innovation to explore generativity development among collegiate leadership mentors. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 13(1), 34-54.
22. Hofer, J., Busch, H., Chasiotis, A., Kärtner, J. ve Campos, D. (2008). Concern for generativity and its relation to implicit pro-social power motivation, generative goals, and satisfaction with life: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Personality, 76, 1–30.
23. Huta, V. ve Zuroff, D. C. (2007a). Examining mediators of the link between generativity and well-being. Journal of Adult Development, 14, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-007-9030-7.
24. Huta, V. ve Zuroff, D. C. (2007b). The role of generativity in predicting well-being in middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 62(5), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/62.5.P310.
25. Kline, P. (2011). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
26. Koo, T. ve Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.
27. Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: Generativity and the interpretation of lives. Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Kotre, J. (1996). Outliving the self: How we live on in future generations. Norton & Co.
29. Larrain, M.E., Zegers, B., ve Orellana, Y. (2017). Translation and Adaptation of a Scale to Assess Generativity in Grandparents in Santiago, Chile. Psykhe ,26(2). https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.26.2.966
30. Lawford, H. L., ve Shulman, S. (2024). Emergence and development of generativity in early adulthood. In F. Villar, H. L. Lawford ve M. W. Pratt (Eds.), The development of generativity across adulthood (Chap. 4). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780191966309.003.0004.
31. McAdams, D. P. ve Logan, R. L. (2004). What is generativity? In E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams ve T.-C. Kim (Eds.), The generative society: Caring for future generations (ss. 15–31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10622-002.
32. McAdams, D. P. ve St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015.
33. McAdams, D. P., St. Aubin, E. ve Logan, R. (1993). Generativity and adult development: A review of the literature. Journal of Adult Development, 1(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00436069.
34. de Medeiros, K., Rubinstein, R. ve Ermoshkina, P. (2015). The role of relevancy and social suffering in "generativity" among older post-soviet women immigrants. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt126.
35. Meydan, H., Keskin, S. C., İçöz Arslan, E. ve Algül, Ö. (2024). Değer eğitiminde işe koşulacak beceriler: Uzman görüşüne dayalı bir ihtiyaç analizi. Eskiyeni, 54, 1485–1512. https://doi.org/10.37697/eskiyeni.1462967.
36. Morselli, D. ve Passini, S. (2015). Measuring prosocial attitudes for future generations: The Social Generativity Scale. Journal of Adult Development, 22(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-015-9210-9.
37. Nunnally, J. C. ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. baskı). McGraw-Hill.
38. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., ve Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological methods, 17(3), 354.
39. Rubinstein, R. L., Girling, L. M., de Medeiros, K., Brazda, M. ve Hannum, S. (2015). Extending the framework of generativity theory through research: A qualitative study. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu009.
40. Schoklitsch, A., ve Baumann, U. (2011). Measuring generativity in older adults: The development of new scales. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 24(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000030.
41. Schumacker, R. E. ve Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610904.
42. Sesli Sözlük. (2024). https://www.seslisozluk.net/generativity-nedir-ne-demek/.
43. Sunderman, J. (2020). The relationship between generativity and well-being in emerging adults. Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(3), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1683494.
44. Telef, B. (2013). Psikolojik iyi oluş ölçeği'nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve geçerlilik, güvenilirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 28(70), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1152/jpsp.2013.2861.
45. Tulunay Ateş, Ö. (2019). Türkiye’de değerler eğitimi uygulamalarının öğrencilere kazandırılması istenen olumlu özellikler üzerindeki etkisi. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 17(38), 141–164. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/712305.
46. TÜİK. (2021). Evlenme ve boşanma istatistikleri 2021 [Marriage and divorce statistics 2021]. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Evlenme-ve-Bosanma-Istatistikleri-2021-45568.