Hayvan Müdahalesine Yönelik Tutum Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2019, , 77 - 85, 08.08.2019

Şeyda Gül

https://doi.org/10.32707/ercivet.595660

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı “Hayvan Müdahalesine Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği” ni Türkçe’ ye uyarlamaktır. İlk aşamada, dört uzman akademisyen ve 24 öğrenciden elde edilen veriler kullanılarak ölçeğin dil geçerliliği sağlanmıştır. Dil geçerliği sağlandıktan sonra sırasıyla madde analizi, açıklayıcı faktör analizi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla, Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi'ne devam eden toplam 218 biyoloji ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarına 30 maddeden oluşan beşli Likert ölçek uygulanmıştır. Madde analizi ve Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) yapıldıktan sonra, ölçeğin 19 maddelik üç faktörden (evcil hayvanlar, zararlılar ve fayda) oluştuğu tespit edildi. Ölçeğin üçlü faktöriyel yapısını analiz etmek için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır ve elde edilen bulgular, 19 maddelik üç faktörlü bu yapının tutarlı ve veriyle uyumlu olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ölçeğin geneline ait Cronbach Alpha katsayısı ise 0.827 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışmanın bulguları, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Hayvan müdahalesi, geçerlik, güvenirlik, tutum ölçeği

Adaptation of Attitude Scale towards the Treatment of Animals to Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt to Turkish the Attitude Scale towards the Treatment of Animals (ASTA). At the first stage, the linguistic validity of the translated scale was examined by utilizing the data obtained from 4 expert academicians and 24 university students. Upon satisfaction of the linguistic validity requirements, item analysis, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed, respectively. For this aim, the five-point Likert Scale composed of 30 items was administered to a total of 218 teachers to be enrolled in prospective biology and science departments of Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education in Ataturk University. After item analysis and Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed, it was ascertained that the scale consisted of 19 items and three factors (pets, pests and profit). In order to analyse the triple factorial structure of the ASTA, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out and the findings indicated that 19-item scale resulting in three factors is consistent and compatible with the data. Cronbach’s Alpha for the overall scale was calculated as 0.827. As a result, the findings of this study indicate that the Turkish ASTA is a valid and reliable scale for Turkish students.

References

• 1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of crosscultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25(24): 3186-91.
• 2. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psych Bul 1990; 107(2): 238-46.
• 3. Boztunç-Öztürk N, Şahin MG, Kelecioğlu H. A review of articles concerning scale adaptation in the field of education. Educ Sci 2015; 40(178): 123-37.
• 4. Broom DM. Evolution of pain. In Pain: Its Nature and Management in Man and Animals. International Congress and Symposium Series. Soulsby L, Morton D. eds. In: Roy Soc Med 2001; 246: 17-25.
• 5. Broom DM. Animal welfare education: Development and prospects. J Vet Med Educ 2005; 32: 438-41.
• 6. Bryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release on for windows. First Edition. Philadelphia: Routledge 2001; pp. 96.
• 7. Buyukozturk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Yedinci Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları 2007; pp. 171.
• 8. Buyukozturk Ş, Akgün ÖE., Özkahveci Ö, Demirel F. The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. KUYEB 2004; 4(2): 207-39.
• 9. Buyukozturk Ş, Kılıç-Çakmak E, Akgün ÖE, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri Onuncu Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları, 2011; pp. 16-91.
• 10. Chiang WW, Liu CJ. Scale of academic emotion in science education: development and validation. Int J Sci Educ 2014; 36(6): 908-28.
• 11. Daly B, Morton LL. Children with pets do not show higher empathy: A challenge to current views. Anthrozoos 2003; 16(4): 298-314.
• 12. Demir Ö, Yurdugül H. The adaptation of the scale of attitude towards computer into Turkish for middle and secondary school students. Educ Sci 2014; 39(176): 247-56.
• 13. Field AP. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: And Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll. Third Edition. London: Sage publications 2009; pp. 640.
• 14. Fraser D, Duncan IJ. 'Pleasures','pains' and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Anim welfare 1998; 7(4): 383-96.
• 15. Güngören ÖC, Bektaş M, Öztürk E, Horzum MB. Acceptance of TPC scale - Validity and reliability study. Educ Sci 2014; 39(176): 69-79.
• 16. Gürer MD, Yıldırım Z. Development, validity and reliability study of the learning object evaluation scale. Educ Sci 2014; 39(176): 121-30.
• 17. Henry B. The relationship between animal cruelty, delinquency, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Soc Anim 2004; 12(3): 185-207.
• 18. Herzog H, Betchart N, Pittman R. Sex role identity and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 1991; 4(3): 184–92.
• 19. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Meth 2008; 6(1): 53-60.
• 20. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. First Edition. Chicago: Scientific Software International, 1993; p. 43.
• 21. Kenny DA, McCoach DB. Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Struc Equ Model 2003; 10(3): 333-51.
• 22. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Third Edition. New York: The Guilford Press 2011; pp. 12.
• 23. Lan YL. Development of an attitude scale to assess K-12 teachers' attitudes toward nanotechnology. Int J Sci Educ 2012; 34(8): 1189-210.
• 24. Mazas B, Fernández-Manzanal MR, Zarza FJ, María GA. Development and validation of a scale to assess students’ attitude towards animal welfare. Int J Sci Educ 2013; 35(11): 1775-99.
• 25. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1996; 1(2): 130-49.
• 26. McMillian JH, Schumacher S. Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry. Seventh Edition. Boston: Pearson 2010; pp. 22.
• 27. Melanlıoğlu D. Determining the psychometric features of reading anxiety scale. Educ Sci 2014; 39(176): 95-105.
• 28. Özdamar K. Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi II. Beşinci Baskı. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi 2004; 235.
• 29. Plous S. Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psych Sci 1996; 7: 352-8.
• 30. Potaka L, Cochrane S. Developing bilingual questionnaires: Experiences from New Zealand in the development of the 2001 Mäori Language Survey. JOS 2004; 20(2): 289-300.
• 31. Regan T. The case for animal rights. Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 2004; pp. 15.
• 32. Rolston H. The value of species. Regan T, Singer P. eds. In: Animal rights and human obligations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1989; pp. 252–5.
• 33. Rowan AN, Loew EM, Veer JC. The animal research controversy: Protest. process & publicpolicy: an analysis of strategic issues. North Grafton, MA: Tufts University, Center for Animals and Public Policy, 1995; pp. 18.
• 34. Sandoe P, Crisp R, Holtug N, Ethics: Chapter 1. Appleby MC, Hughes OB. eds. In: Anim welfare. Wallingford: CABI Publishing 1997; pp. 3-17.
• 35. Seçer İ. Adapting the child version of obsessive-compulsive inventory into Turkish: The study of reliability and validity. Educ Sci 2014; 39(176): 355-67.
• 36. Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar A, Dillon WR. A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. JBR 2005; 58(1): 935-43.
• 37. Singer P. All animals are equal. Regan T, Singer P. eds. In: Animal rights and human obligations Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1989; pp. 73-86.
• 38. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson/A&B 2007; pp.26.
• 39. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Dördüncü Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım 2010; 46-50.
• 40. Taylor N, Signal, TD. Empathy and attitudes to animals, Anthrozoos 2005; 18(1): 18-27.
• 41. Taylor N, Signal TD. Pet, pest, profit: Isolating differences in attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Anthrozoos 2009; 22(2): 129-35.
• 42. Totan T, Yavuz Y. Westside sınav kaygısı ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalısması. MAKU J Educ Fac 2009; 9(17), 95-109.
• 43. Van der Weijden JA. Attitudes towards the use of animals of students enrolled in animal welfare and laboratory science courses in the Netherlands. Published Master Thesis. Utrecht University, Netherland 2013; pp. 1-22.
• 44. Wilson CC, Netting FE. The status of instrument development in the human–animal interaction field. Anthrozoos 2012; 25: 11–55.