The Adaptation of Distributed Leadership Inventory to Turkish Language, Language Validity & Pre-Psychometric Investigation

Year 2014, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 19 - 30, 01.10.2014

Mehmet Şahin Cihan Uğur Sezen Dinçel Abdullah Balıkçı Engin Karadağ

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt Distributed Leadership Scale (Davis, 2009) that measure teachers’ perception of distributed leadership of their administrators into Turkish language and investigate reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the scale. 268 teachers participated in the study, and firstly the validity of the translation was investigated by translating the scale items; and then, language and semantic validity, content validity, construct validity, test-re-test reliability and internal consistency were investigated. The findings indicated that the scale may be reliable; however, the values of CFA indicated that the Turkish version of the scale may be problematic. Consequently, although the Turkish version of the scale provided enough reliability coefficients, the one-dimensional form of the scale may be assumed as convenient as the Turkish version of the scale did not have enough validity coefficients for a 7-factor construct

Keywords

Distributed leadership, distributed leadership scale, leadership

Dağıtımcı Liderlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması, Dil Geçerliği ve Ön Psikometrik İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çalışanların yöneticilerinin dağıtımcı liderlik algılarını ölçen Dağıtımcı Liderlik Ölçeği’ni (Davis, 2009) Türk diline uyarlanarak, Türkçe ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin sınanmasıdır. 268 katılımcı üzerinde gerçekleştirilen çalışmada öncelikle, ölçek maddelerinin Türkçeye çevrilerek çeviri geçerliği incelenmiş; ardından dil ve anlam geçerliği, içerik geçerliliği, yapı geçerliği, test-yeniden-test güvenirliği ve iç tutarlıkları araştırılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular bize ölçeğin güvenilir olduğunu düşündürmektedir. Ancak gerçekleştirilen DFA sonucunda elde edilen değerler Türkçe formun geçerliliğini problemli kılmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, DLÖ Türkçe formunun, her ne kadar yeterli güvenirlik katsayıları sağlanmış olsa da, ölçeğin orijinal 7 boyutlu formuna yönelik yeterli geçerlilik değerlerine sahip olmaması sebebiyle, tek boyutlu olarak kullanılması uygun olarak kabul edilebilir

Keywords

Dağıtımcı liderlik, dağıtımcı liderlik ölçeği, liderlik

References

• Baloğlu, N. (2011a). Dağıtımcı liderlik: Okullarda dikkate alınması gereken bir liderlik yaklaşımı. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 127-148.
• Baloğlu, N. (2011b). Dağıtımcı liderlik uygulamaları: Eklektik bir tasarım çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(4), 163-181.
• Baloğlu, N. (2012). Değerler temelli liderlik ile dağıtımcı liderlik arasındaki ilişkiler: Okul müdürünün davranışını değerlendirmeye dönük nedensel bir araştırma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(2), 1367-1378.
• Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-24.
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (ss. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1217–1234.
• Davis, M. W. (2009). Distributed Leadership and School Performance. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of George Washington University, USA.
• Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
• Fricker, R.D. (2008). Sampling methods for web and email surveys. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (ss. 195-216). London: Sage.
• Gordon, Z. (2005). The effect of distributed leadership on student achievement. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Department of Educational Leadership, Central Connecticut State University. USA.
• Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.
• Gronn P. (2006). The significance of distributed leadership, Educational Leadership Research, 7. http://slc.educ.ubc.ca/eJournal/Issue7/index7.html internet adresinden 26, 06, 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• Gwele, N. S. (2008). Participative leadership in managing a faculty strategy. South African Journal of Education, 22(2), 322–332.
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110.
• Harris, A. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255–65.
• Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 1–11.
• Harris A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188.
• Harris, A. (2009a). Setting the scene. A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed Leadership: Different perspectives içinde (ss. 2–10). London: Springer.
• Harris, A. (2009b). Distributed leadership: What we know. A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed Leadership: Different perspectives içinde (ss. 11–21). London: Springer.
• Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2): 202–214.
• Hartley, D. (2009) Education policy, distributed leadership and socio-cultural theory. Educational Review, 61(2): 139–150.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53 – 60.
• Hu, L.-T., & 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.
• Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1013-1034.
• Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.51. Mooresvile: Scientific Software.
• Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 722–743.
• Kezar, A. 2001. Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(1), 85–101.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
• Korkmaz, E. (2010). İlköğretim okul yöneticilerinin paylaşımcı liderlik davranışlarını gösterme düzeyleri (İzmit örneği).Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Korkmaz, E., & Gündüz H. B. (2010). İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Dağıtımcı Liderlik Davranışlarını Gösterme Düzeyleri. Kalem Eğitim ve İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 123- 153.
• Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2001). Leadership practices inventory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared Leadership: Can It Work in Schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4), 298.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Pearson: London.
• Özdemir, M. (2012). Dağıtımcı Liderlik Envanterinin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışmaları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 18(4), 575-598.
• Özer, N., & Beycioğlu, K. (2013). Paylaşılan liderlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. İlköğretim Online, 12(1), 77‐86.
• Schumacker, R.E. & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
• Spillane, J., Diamond J. B., & Jita L. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5), 533–543.
• Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
• Spillane, J., & Diamond, J. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Spillane, J. P., Healey, K., &Parise, L.M. (2009a). School leaders' opportunities to learn: A descriptive analysis from a distributed perspective. Educational Review, 61(4), 407– 432.
• Stam, D.A., Knippenberg, D. V. & Wisse, B. (2010). Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 457–468.
• Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-98.
• University of Michigan. (2001). School leader questionnaire. http://www.sii.soe.umich.edu/documents/School%20Leader%20with%20copyrighting.p df internet adresinden 26, 06, 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 355–380.
• Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3–26.
• Woods, P. A. (2006). A democracy of all learners: Ethical rationality and the affective roots of democratic leadership. School Leadership & Management, 26(4), 321-337.