Demokrasi Algısı Ölçeği: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Year 2023, , 491 - 521, 31.10.2023

Abdurrahman Kılıç , Burcu Ökmen , Şeyma Şahin

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1255927

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırma ile bireylerin demokrasi algılarını ölçen geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. 83 maddeden oluşan taslak ölçek açımlayıcı faktör analizine tabi tutulmuş ve analiz sonrası altı faktör altında 35 maddeden oluşan bir ölçek oluşmuştur. Bu 35 maddenin toplam varyansın %63.946’sını açıkladığı görülmüştür. Altı faktörlü yapıda yer alan faktörlerin isimleri; 1) Hukukun Üstünlüğü ve Adalet, 2) Muhalefet, 3) Katılım, 4) Kuvvetler Ayrılığı, 5) Özgürlük, 6) Çoğulculuk olarak isimlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin faktör yapısının doğrulanması amacıyla DFA yapılmış, X2/df değerinin 2.02, RMSEA değerinin 0.042, NFI değerinin 0.97, NNFI değerinin 0.98, CFI değerinin 0.99, GFI değerinin 0.99 ve AGFI değerinin 0.99 olduğu belirlenmiş ve elde edilen bu değerlerin yapının doğrulanması için yeterli olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları için CR ve test-tekrar test korelasyon değerleri hesaplanmıştır. CR değeri 0,97 ve test-tekrar test korelasyon değeri 0,77 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarına ilişkin tüm sonuçlar incelendiğinde ölçeğin bireylerin demokrasi algılarını ölçebilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi, Demokrasi, Demokrasi Algısı, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi, Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik

Perception of Democracy: A Scale Development Study

Abstract

The study aimed to develop a scale to measure individuals' perceptions of democracy. After the exploratory factor analysis, a structure comprising 35 items and six factors was formed. It was determined that the scale explained 63.946% of the total variance in this form. The factors include the "Rule of Law and Justice," "Opposition," "Participation," "Separation of Powers," "Freedom," and "Pluralism." CFA was performed, and the fit index values were found as follows: χ2/df=2.02, RMSEA=0.042, NFI=0.97, NNFI=0.98, CFI=0.99, GFI=0.99, and AGFI= 0.99. It was concluded that all values obtained from CFA analysis are sufficient to verify the structure. It was also supposed that the 35 items-six-factor structure was confirmed as a model. Related to the validity and reliability studies of the scale, it was seen that CR and test-retest correlation values showed that the scale is valid and reliable. CR value was 0.97, and the test-retest correlation value was 0.77. After examining all the results, we decided that the scale is valid and reliable for measuring individuals' perceptions of democracy.

Keywords

Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Democracy, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Perception of Democracy, Validity and Reliability

References

• Akçeşme, B., & Fidan, N. K. (2021). Views of the classroom teachers about the course of human rights, citizenship and democracy. MSKU Journal of Education, 8(1), 147-164.
• Aliefendioğlu, Y. (2005). Temsili demokrasinin “seçim” ayağı [“Electoral” pillar of representative democracy]. TBB Dergisi, 60, 71-96.
• Arı, A., Sirem, Ö., & Kayır, G. (2021). Investigation of democracy education in Turkish primary schools. Anatolian Journal of Education, 6(1), 131-144.
• Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1) 79-86.
• Bakioğlu, A., & Kurt, T. (2009). A qualitative analysis of teachers’ perceptions of democracy citizenship and patriotism. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 29, 19-39.
• Bal, M. S., & Yiğittir, S. (2013). An investigation of primary and secondary school students' perceptions of democracy. Adiyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(14), 195-220.
• Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. The Guilford Press.
• Beetham, D. (2014). Demokrasi ve insan hakları [Democracy and human rights] (Trans: B. Canatan). Liberte Yayınları.
• Bolton, R. N. (1993). Pretesting questionnaires: Content analysis of respondents’ concurrent verbal protocols. Marketing Science, 12(3), 280-303.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
• Burns, E. (1984). Çağdaş siyasal düşünceler 1850-1950 [Contemporary political thought 1850-1950] (Trans: A. Şenel). Birey ve Toplum Yayınları.
• Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44.
• Cheung, H. W. C., Lee, C. K. J., Kennedy, K. J., & Kuang, X. (2020). Adolescent religious engagement and democracy: a comparison of student attitudes in Hong Kong and South Korea. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1-18.
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
• Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
• Cutts, M. N., & Moseley, N. (2001). Üstün zekalı ve yetenekli çocukların eğitimi [Education of gifted and talented children] (Trans. İ. Ersevim). Özgür Yayınları.
• Dahl, R. A. (2001). Demokrasi üstüne [About democracy] (Trans. B. Kadıoğlu). Phoenix Yayınevi.
• Dewey, J. (2001). Democracy and education. The Pennsylvania State University.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Durdi, M., & Erdamar, G. (2020). Social studies teachers’ and classroom teachers’ views about the syllabus of the 4th grade human rights, citizenship, and democracy course. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 7(1), 193-218.
• Edwards, C. H. (2008). Classroom discipline & management (5. ed.). John Wiley & Sons Publishers.
• Finch, W. H., Immekus, M. C., & French, B. F. (2016). Applied Psychometrics using SPSS and Amos. Information Age Publishing Inc.
• Fortuna, P., & Panizza, U. (2015). Democracy, education and the quality of government. J Econ Growth, 20, 333-363.
• Geçkil, T., & Tikici, M. (2015). A study on developing the organizational democracy scale. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 48(4), 41-78.
• Gilbert, G. E., & Prion, S. (2016). Making sense of methods and measurement: Lawshe’s content validity index. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12, 530-531.
• Guadagnoli, E, & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275.
• Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning: International Journal of Strategic Management, 45(5-6), 320–340.
• Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press, Inc.
• Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organization. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
• 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.
• Karaman, H. (2015). The comparison of factor extraction strategies used in exploratory factor analysis (Unpublished master's thesis). Hacettepe University.
• Kieffer, K. M. (1998). Orthogonal versus oblique factor rotation: A review of the literature regarding the pros and cons. The Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
• Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing A practical approach to design and evaluation. SAGE Publications.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.) The Guilford Press.
• Koyuncu, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2019). The use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: a document. Education and Science, 44(198), 361-388.
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psy, 28, 563–575.
• Lieberkind, J. (2020). Democracy and togetherness: between students’ educational and political status–a study of primary and lower secondary education in Denmark. Multicultural Education Review, 12(1), 17-30.
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.
• Maskey, R., Fei, J., & Nguyen, H. (2018). Use of exploratory factor analysis in maritime research. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 34(2), 91-111.
• Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, dont’s, and how-to’s. International of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110.
• Mindrilă, D. (2010). Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(1), 60-66.
• Mukaka, M. M. (2012). Statistics Corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69-71.
• Newsom, J. T. (2018). Alternative estimation methods (Psy 523/623 Structural Equation Modeling, Spring 2018). Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu/~newsomj/semclass/ho_estimate.pdf
• Olatunji, F. O. (2013). Democracy and the challenge of the rules of law in developing democratic society. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, 3(2), 67-79.
• Osterberg-Kaufmann, N., & Stadelmaier, U. (2020). Measuring meanings of democracy-methods of differentiation. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 14(4), 1-23.
• Ökmen, B., Şahin, Ş., & Kılıç, A. (2020). The Conceptual Networks Related to Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Democracy. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(31), 508-531.
• Özer, İ. (1996). Political culture, democracy and democratic values. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 1, 71-98.
• Pažur, M., Domović, V., & Kovač, V. (2020). Democratic school culture and democratic school leadership. Croatian Journal of Education, 22(4), 1137-1164.
• Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Inter-item correlations. In: A.C. Michalos (Ed.) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer.
• Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153-161.
• Reynolds, N., Diamantapoulos, A., & Schlegelmilch, B. (1993). Pretesting in questionnaire design: A review of the literature and suggestion for further research. Journal of the Market Research Society, 35(2), 171-182.
• Sartori, G. (1996). Demokrasi teorisine geri dönüş [Back to the theory of democracy] (Trans: T. Karamustafaoğlu & M. Turhan). Yetkin Yayınları.
• Sarwar, M., Yousuf, M. I., & Hussain, S. (2010). Attitude toward democracy in Pakistan: Secondary school teachers perceptions. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 7(3), 33-38.
• Schmidh, M. (2002). Demokrasi kuramına giriş [Introduction to the theory of democracy] (Trans. M. E. Köktaş). Vadi Yayınları.
• Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768.
• Subba, D. (2014). Democratic values and democratic approach in teaching: A perspective. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12), 37-40.
• Şahin, Ş. (2020). Compassionate love, democracy, and student centered education perceptions of students, teachers, and school principals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Duzce University.
• Şahin, Ş., & Kılıç, A. (2020a). School principals' discourses of compassionate love, democracy and student-centered education. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(33), 439-471.
• Şahin, Ş., & Kılıç, A. (2020b). Students' perceptions of compassionate love, democracy and studentcentered education. The Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(2), 294-325.
• Şahin, Ş., & Kılıç, A. (2020c). Teachers' discourses of democracy and education. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 238-262.
• Şahin, Ş., & Kılıç, A. (2020d). Concept networks of students' democracy perceptions. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of ISS, 10(2), 764-785.
• Şahin, Ş., Ökmen, B., & Kılıç, A. (2020). Graduate students’ perceptions of democracy. National Journal of Education Academy, 3(1), 1-9.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6. ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
• Toraman, C., Acar, F., & Aydın, H. (2015). Primary school teachers’ attitudes and knowledge levels on democracy and multicultural education: A scale development study. Review of Research and Social Intervention, 49, 41-58.
• Wang, G., Wu, L., & Han, R. (2015). College education and attitudes toward democracy in China: An empirical study. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(3), 399-412.
• Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269.
• Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751.
• Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3) 197-210.
• Veneziano L., & Hooper J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70.
• Yavuz Tabak, B., & Karip, E. (2021). Democratic school culture: Investigating an educational practice of democracy in schools a study on democratic citizenship and human rights education project in Turkey. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-21.
• Yeşil, R. (2002). Okul ve ailede insan hakları ve demokrasi eğitimi [Human rights and democracy education in school and family]. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Yeşilyurt, S., & Çapraz, C. (2018). A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(1), 251-264.