Kariyer Eylemsizliği Ölçeği: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmada D'Huyvetter vd. (2024) tarafından geliştirilen Kariyer Eylemsizliği Ölçeği’nin (Career Inaction Scale) Türkçe uyarlaması yapılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda ölçeğin dil ve kültür geçerliliği sağlanmış ve ölçeğe ait psikometrik özellikler istatistiksel analizlerle sınanmıştır. Ölçek ifadelerinin Türkçe’ye çevrilmesiyle başlayan süreç sonrası ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği ve birleşim geçerliliği test edilmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemi Isparta ilinde yer alan bankacılık ve çağrı merkezi hizmetleri sektörlerinde yer alan çalışanlardan oluşmaktadır. Kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle online ve yüz yüze anketler ile katılımcılara ulaşılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda 362 katılımcıdan elde edilen verilerle analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlarda toplam varyansın %62,14’ünün açıklandığı 8 ifadeli ve tek boyutlu yapı elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğe ait uyum değerleri ise iyi ve kabul edilebilir sınırlar içerisinde yer almıştır (χ2/df=3,24; CFI=0,97; GFI=0,96; AGFI=0,92; NFI=0,96; TLI=0,96; RMSEA=0,07). Ölçeğin Cronbach’s Alpha güvenilirlik katsayısının 0,91 olduğu ve birleşim geçerliliğinin sağlandığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Son olarak ölçeğin ölçüt bağıntılı geçerliliği test etmek amacıyla Proaktif Kişilik Ölçeği ve Algılanan Sosyal Destek Ölçeğiyle ilişkisi test edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar kariyer eylemsizliğinin proaktif kişilik özellikleri ve aileden algılanan sosyal destek ile negatif yönlü ve anlamlı bir ilişki içerisinde olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar doğrultusunda Kariyer Eylemsizliği Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ölçek Uyarlama
• Kariyer Eylemsizliği
• Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik

Career Inaction Scale: A Scale Adaptation Study

Abstract

In this study, the Career Inaction Scale developed by D'Huyvetter et al. (2024) was adapted into Turkish. In this direction, the language and cultural validity of the scale were ensured, and its psychometric properties were tested through statistical analyses. After the process began with translating the scale statements into Turkish, the construct validity and convergent validity of the scale were tested. The study's sample consists of employees working in the banking and call center services sectors in the province of Isparta. Participants were reached through online and face-to-face surveys using the convenience sampling method. In this direction, the data obtained from 362 participants were analyzed. In the results, a unidimensional structure with eight statements was identified, accounting for 62.14% of the total variance. The fit values of the scale were within acceptable limits (χ2/df=3.24; CFI=0.97; GFI=0.96; AGFI=0.92; NFI=0.96; TLI=0.96; RMSEA=0.07). The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.91, and the convergent validity was met. Finally, to test the criterion-related validity of the scale, its relationship with the Proactive Personality Scale and the Perceived Social Support Scale was examined. The results show that career inaction has a negative and significant relationship with proactive personality traits and perceived social support from family. The results revealed that the Turkish version of the Career Inaction Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords

• Scale Adaptation
• Career Inaction
• Turkish Validity and Reliability

References

1. Adamson, S., Doherty, N., & Viney, C. (1998). The meanings of career revisited: Implications for theory and practice. British Journal of Management, 9, 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00096
2. Akın, A., Abacı, R., Kaya, M., & Arıcı, N. (2011, Haziran 22-25). Kısaltılmış proaktif kişilik ölçeği’nin (KPÖ) türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. ICES11 International Conference on Educational Sciences, Famagusta, Cyprus.
3. Alavi, M., Visentin, D. C., Thapa, D. K., Hunt, G. E., Watson, R., & Cleary, M. (2020). Chisquare for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(9), 2209–2211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399
4. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
5. Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, E. Ö., Özkahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve öğrenme stratejileri ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 207-239.
7. Collins, L. (2022). Job unhappiness is at a staggering all-time high, according to Gallup. CNBC. https://www.cnbc. com/2022/08/12/job-unhappiness-is-at-a-staggering-all-time-high-according-to-gallup.html (01.04.2025)
8. D'Huyvetter, P., Verbruggen, M., Jing, X., & Akkermans, J. (2024). Development and validation of the career inaction scale. Applied Psychology. 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12590

9. Dries, N., & Verbruggen, M. (2023). Career inaction in Belgium: When you want to make a career change, but you just don't. J. Briscoe, M. Dickmann, D. T. Hall, W. Mayrhofer & E. Parry (Eds.), Understanding careers around the globe (64–72). Edward Elgar Publishing.
10. Eker D., & Arkar H (1995). Factorial structure, validity, and reliability of multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10(34), 45-55.
11. Gallup, (2024). Most People like their Jobs, Satisfaction with the Remuneration is still Lacking behind. https://www.gallup-international.com/survey-results-and-news/survey-result/most-people-like-their-jobs-satisfaction-with-the-remuneration-is-still-lacking-behind (01.04.2025)
12. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
13. Gürbüz, S. (2019). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
14. Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, J. B., & Rolph, E. A. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. USA: Pearson Education Limited.
15. Hattiangadi, N., Medvec, V. H., & Gilovich, T. (1995). Failing to act: Regrets of Terman's geniuses. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 40(3), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.2190/4U4E-N77B-PKJ2-CJXM
16. He, Z., Zhou, Y., Li, F., Rao, Z., & Yang, Y. (2020). The effect of proactive personality on college students’ career decision-making difficulties: Moderating and mediating effects. Journal of Adult Development, 28, 116 - 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-020-09359-9
17. Hirschi, A., & Freund, P. (2014). Career engagement: Investigating intraindividual predictors of weekly fluctuations in proactive career behaviors. Career Development Quarterly, 62, 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00066.x
18. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
19. Jemini-Gashi, L., Duraku, Z.H., & Kelmendi, K. (2021). Associations between social support, career self-efficacy, and career indecision among youth. Current Psychology, 40, 4691-4697. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-019-00402-X
20. Kline, R. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, USA: The Guilford Press.
21. Li, T., Tien, HL. S., Gu, J., & Wang, J. (2023). The relationship between social support and career adaptability: The chain mediating role of perceived career barriers and career maturity. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 23, 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-021-09515-x
22. Park, I.J., Gu, M., & Hai, S. (2019). How can personality enhance sustainable career management? The mediation effects of future time perspective in career decisions. Sustainability, 12(3), 1167. 10.3390/su12031167
23. Farnia, F., Petrides, K., & Nafukho, F. (2018). Predicting career decision-making difficulties: The role of trait emotional intelligence, positive and negative emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01107
24. Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What we regret most and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167205274693
25. Rogiers, P., Verbruggen, M., D'Huyvetter, P., & Abraham, E. (2022). Stuck between me: A psychodynamic view into career inaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 136, 103745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103745
26. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427.
27. Super, D. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1
28. Türk Dil Kurumu. Güncel Tükçe Sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/ Erişim tarihi 01.04.2025
29. Udayar, S., Fiori, M., Thalmayer, A. G., & Rossier, J. (2018). Investigating the link between trait emotional intelligence, career indecision, and self-perceived employability: The role of career adaptability. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2018.06.046
30. Verbruggen, M., & De Vos, A. (2020). When people don’t realise their career desires: Toward a theory of career inaction. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0196
31. Wang, D., Jiao, R., & Wang, H. (2023). Perceived overqualification and career indecisiveness: examining the mediating role of career self-efficacy and moderating role of social support. Current Psychology, 43(13), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05333-2.
32. Wang, Z., Song, Y., & Jiang, F. (2024). Are they more proactive or less engaged? Understanding employees' career proactivity after promotion failure through an attribution lens. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 155:104061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104061.
33. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30-41.