Reliability and validity studies of the Turkish version of the e-bullying scale (e-BS) and e-victimization scale (e-VS) / E- zorbalık ölçeği ve e-mağduriyet ölçeğinin Türkçe formlarının geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to discover the usability of the E- Bullying Scale (E-BS) and E-Victimization Scale (E-VS) among Turkish adolescents. For this purpose, two separate studies were conducted and supportive results for reliability and validity were gathered. In study I, the factorial structure of E-BS was investigated. Participants were 163 adolescents with ages ranged between 14 and 19. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed an excellent model. A hundred and eighty eight (n=188) adolescents, with ages ranged from 14 to 19, took part in study 2. The factorial structure of E-VS demonstrated a single factor model that appeared a sufficient fit with data in confirmatory factor analysis. As for the reliability and convergent validity results, it can be stated that both of two instruments showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. In addition, the correlations of cyber bullying/victimization and e-bullying/victimization declared the assessment of bullying and victimization behaviors in cyberspace. In total, psychometric properties have shown that both of two instruments are valid and reliable.

Keywords

• E-bullying, e-victimization, factorial structure, reliability

(E- ZORBALIK ÖLÇEĞİ VE E-MAĞDURİYET ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇE FORMLARININ GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMALARI)

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı E-Zorbalık ve E-Mağduriyet Ölçeklerinin Türk ergenler üzerinde kullanılabilirliğini araştırmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, iki farklı çalışma yürütülmüş ve her iki ölçme aracına yönelik güvenilir ve geçerli bulgular elde edilmiştir. Çalışma 1 kapsamında, E-Zorbalık Ölçeğinin faktör yapısı incelenmiştir. Çalışma 1, yaşları 14 ile 19 arasında değişen 163 ergen üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Doğrulayıcı factor analizi sonucunda ölçme aracının elde edilen verilerle iyi düzeyde uyum gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Yaşları 14 ile 19 arasında değişen 188 ergen üzerinde yürütülen ikinci çalışmada E-Mağduriyet Ölçeğinin faktör yapısı incelenmiştir. Tek faktörlü modelin verilerle iyi düzeyde uyum gösterdiği saptanmıştır. Güvenirlik ve ölçüt geçerliklerine gelince, iki ölçme aracının da iç tutarlık katsayıları ve test tekrar test güvenirliklerinin kabul edilen ölçütler arasında olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, siber zorbalık ve siber mağduriyet ile e-zorbalık ve e-mağduriyet arasında ilişkiler her iki ölçme aracının da siver ortamda meydana gelen mağduriyet ve zorbalığı değerlendirmede kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir. Genel olarak, bu çalışma kapsamında psikometrik özellikleri incelenen iki ölçme aracının Türk örnekleminde geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır

Keywords

• E-Zorbalık, e-mağduriyet, faktör yapısı, güvenirlik

References

1. Arıcak, O. T., Kınay, H., & Tanrıkulu, T. (2012). Siber zorbalık ölçeğinin ilk psikometrik bulguları. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 101- 114.
2. Arıcak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Sarıbeyoglu, S., Çıplak, S., Yılmaz, N., et al. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(3), 253–261.
3. Ayas, T., & Horzum, M. B. (2010). Cyber bully/victim scale development study. Akademik Bakıs, 19, 1-17.
4. Barlett, C. P., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Attacking others online: The formation of cyber bullying in late adolescence. Psychology and Popular Media Culture, 1(2), 123-135.
5. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
6. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
7. Champion, K. (2009). Victimization, anger, and gender: Low anger and passive responses work. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 71–82.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

9. Çetin, B., Yaman, E., & Peker, A. (2011). Cyber victim and bullying scale: A study of validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57, 2261-2271.
10. Dijkstra, J., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1377–1389.
11. Erdur-Baker, Ö., & Kavsut, F. (2007). Cyber bullying. A new face of peer bullying. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 27, 31–42.
12. Everitt, B. S., & Skrondal, A. (2010). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (4 th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
14. Floros, G. D., Siomos, K. E., Fisoun, V., Dafouli, E., & Geroukalis, D. (2013). Adolescent online cyber bullying in Greece: The impact of parental online security practices, bonding, and online impulsiveness. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 445-453.
15. Freis, S. D., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). A facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 11-19.
16. Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416.
17. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5–16.
18. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
19. Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S., & Agatston, P. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
20. Lam, L. T., & Li, Y. (2013). The validation of the E-Victimisation Scale (E-VS) and the E- Bullying Scale (E-BS) for adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 3-7.
21. Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Gagné, M. H. (2012). Are cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 664-672.
22. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill.
23. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press.
24. Olweus, D. (1993). Bulling at school. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25. Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. (2006). Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26. Palfrey, J. (2008). Enhancing child safety and on-line technologies. Cambridge, MA: Final report of the Internet safety technical task force.
27. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148–169.
28. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142–163.
29. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home. Abingdon: Routledge.
30. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.
31. Smith, P. K., & Boulton, M. (1990). Rough and tumble play, aggression, and dominance. Perception and behavior in children’s encounters. Human Development, 33, 271–282.
32. Smith, P. K., Mandavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385,
33. Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and screens: Insights into the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189-196.
34. Tattum, D., & Tattum, E. (1992). Social education and personal development. London: David Fulton.
35. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.
36. Topcu, Ç., & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). The Revised Cyber Bullying Inventory (RCBI): Validity and reliability studies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 660-664.
37. Topcu, Ç., & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2012). Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of gender differences in cyber and traditional bullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 550-561.
38. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11, 499–503.