SANAL SOSYAL DESTEK ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRK KÜLTÜRÜNE UYARLANMASI/ ADAPTATION OF ONLINE SOCIAL SUPPORT SCALE TO TURKISH CULTURE

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Nick, Cole, Cho, Smith, Carter ve Zelkowitz (2018) tarafından geliştirilen Sanal Sosyal Destek Ölçeği’ni Türkçe’ye uyarlamak, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarını yapmaktır. Araştırmada çalışma grubu olarak Akdeniz bölgesinde yer alan bir üniversitenin eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim gören 340 öğrenciyle (242 kız, 98 erkek) çalışılmıştır. Sanal Sosyal Destek Ölçeği’nin yapı geçerliğinin incelenmesi amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen model uyum indeksleri ölçeğin kabul edilebilir düzeyde uyum verdiğini göstermektedir. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayısı .96 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin orijinal yapıdaki gibi 40 maddeden ve “duygusal destek”, “sosyal arkadaşlık”, “bilgi desteği” ve “araçsal destek” olmak üzere dört alt boyuttan oluştuğu gözlenmiştir. Ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik için yapılan analizlere göre ölçeğin sanal ortamdaki sosyallik ile pozitif yönde anlamlı ilişkiye (r=.62, p <.01), algılanan sosyal destek ile pozitif yönde anlamlı ancak düşük düzeyde bir ilişkiye (r=.18, p <.01) sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçek için yapılan geçerlik güvenirlik analiz sonuçları ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Sanal sosyal destek,sosyal destek,uyarlama

ADAPTATION OF ONLINE SOCIAL SUPPORT SCALE TO TURKISH CULTURE

Abstract

The aim of this research is to adapt the Online Social Support Scale developed by Nick, Cole, Cho, Smith, Carter and Zelkowitz (2018) to Turkish, and to make validity and reliability studies. In the study, 340 students (242 girls, 98 boys) studying in the education faculty of a university in the Mediterranean region of Turkey were studied as a working group. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to examine the structure validity of the Online Social Support Scale. The model fit indices show that the scale is acceptable. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of the scale was found as .96. It was observed that the scale consisted of 40 items as in the original structure and four sub-dimensions as "emotional support", "social friendship", "information support" and "instrumental support". According to the analyses conducted for criterion-related validity, the scale was found to have a positive significant relationship with sociality in the online environment (r = .62, p <.01), and a positive significant but low level relationship with perceived social support (r = .18, p <.01). Validity and reliability analysis results for the scale show that the scale can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool.

References

1. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
2. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
3. Chen, W., & Choi, A. S. K. (2011). Internet and social support among Chinese migrants in Singapore. New Media and Society, 13(7), 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810396311
4. Cole, D., Nick, E., Zelkowitz, R., Roeder, K.,& Spinelli, T. (2017). Online Social Support for Young People: Does It Recapitulate In- person Social Support; Can It Help? Physiology & Behavior, 176(3), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040
5. Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.x Eker, D., Arkar, H., & Yaldız, H. (2001). Çok Boyutlu Algılanan Sosyal Destek Ölçeğinin Gözden Geçirilmiş Formunun Faktör Yapısı, Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 12(1),17-25.
6. Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2015). Toward an Integrated and Differential Approach to the Relationships Between Loneliness, Different Types of Facebook Use, and Adolescents’ Depressed Mood. Communication Research, 009365021561750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215617506
7. Gilmour, J., Machin, T., Brownlow, C., & Jeffries, C. (2019). Facebook-Based Social Support and Health: A Systematic Review. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000246
8. Global Digital (2019). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-turkey adresinden 20 Mart 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

9. Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016). One Click, Many Meanings: Interpreting Paralinguistic Digital Affordances in Social Media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 60(1), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127248
10. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information Communication and Society, 8(2), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500146185
11. Huang, H. Y. (2016). Examining the beneficial effects of individual’s self-disclosure on the social network site. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.030
12. Kocaayan, F. & Özdemir, S. (2019, Nisan). Gelişen İşletişim Ortamları ve Sosyal Destek: Sanal Sosyal Destek [Tam Metin]. V. Human and Civilization Congress From Past To Future, Alanya, Türkiye.
13. Korkmaz, Ö., Usta, E., & Kurt, İ. (2014). Sanal ortam yalnızlık ölçeği (soyö) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(29-2), 144-159.
14. Lee, K. T., Noh, M. J., & Koo, D. M. (2013). Lonely people are no longer lonely on social networking sites: The mediating role of self-disclosure and social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0553
15. Liu, C., & Yu, C. (2013). Can Facebook Use Induce Well-Being? 1, 16(9), 674–679. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0301
16. Liu, D., Wright, K. B., & Hu, B. (2018). A meta-analysis of Social Network Site use and social support. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.024
17. Lu, W., & Hampton, K. N. (2017). Beyond the power of networks: Differentiating network structure from social media affordances for perceived social support. New Media and Society, 19(6), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815621514
18. Luo, M., & Hancock, J. T. (2020). Self-disclosure and social media: motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.019
19. Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521
20. Nick, E. A., Cole, D. A., Cho, S. J., Smith, D. K., Carter, T. G., & Zelkowitz, R. L. (2018). The Online Social Support Scale: Measure development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1127–1143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000558
21. Park, J., Lee, D. S., Shablack, H., Verduyn, P., Deldin, P., Ybarra, O., … Kross, E. (2016). When perceptions defy reality: The relationships between depression and actual and perceived Facebook social support. Journal of Affective Disorders, 200, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.01.048
22. Pornsakulvanich, V. (2017). Personality, attitudes, social influences, and social networking site usage predicting online social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.021
23. Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social networks. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026980
24. Seo, M., Kim, J., & Yang, H. (2016). Frequent Interaction and Fast Feedback Predict Perceived Social Support: Using Crawled and Self-Reported Data of Facebook Users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12160
25. Trepte, S., Dienlin, T., & Reinecke, L. (2015). Influence of Social Support Received in Online and Offline Contexts on Satisfaction With Social Support and Satisfaction With Life: A Longitudinal Study. Media Psychology, 18(1), 74–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.838904
26. TÜİK (2018). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması, sayı: 27819, 08 Ağustos 2018. Haber bülteni. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=27819 adresinden 17 Mart 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
27. White, M., & Dorman, S. M. (2001). Receiving social support online : implications for health education, 16(6), 693–707.
28. Wong, E. T. K., & Ma, W. W.-K. (2016). Exploring relationship between online social support and individual online subjective well-being among young adults. 66th ICA Annual Conference, (June), 30.
29. Wright, K. B., Rosenberg, J., Egbert, N., Ploeger, N. A., Bernard, D. R., & King, S. (2013). Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A model of facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Communication, 18(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.688250
30. Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Palmer, N. A., & Reisner, S. L. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 39, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.006
31. Zell, A. L., & Moeller, L. (2018). Are you happy for me … on Facebook? The potential importance of “likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.050