Çevrimiçi Arkadaşlık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Endonezya’da geliştirilen Çevrimiçi Arkadaşlık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma, Türkiye genelinde farklı üniversitelerde öğrenim gören 404 lisans öğrencisi ile yürütülmüştür. Yapı geçerliği açımlayıcı (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı (DFA) faktör analizleriyle incelenmiştir. Güvenirlik analizlerinde Cronbach alfa (α), McDonald omega (ω), Bileşik Güvenirlik (CR) ve Test-Tekrar Test yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: AFA sonucunda 19 maddelik ölçek, orijinalinde olduğu gibi dört faktörde toplandı ve toplam varyansın %74.52’sini açıkladı (KMO=0.828; Bartlett's χ²=3027.95, p<.001). DFA sonuçları ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini doğruladı. Ölçeğin genel Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0.889; alt boyutlara ait α katsayıları 0.863 ila 0.916 arasında değişti. Test-tekrar test güvenilirliği için hesaplanan ICC değerleri tüm alt boyutlarda 0.80’in üzerindeydi. Sonuç: Çevrimiçi Arkadaşlık Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu geçerli ve güvenilir bulunmuştur. Türkiye’de genç bireylerin dijital ortamdaki arkadaşlık ilişkilerinin değerlendirilmesinde etkili bir araç olarak kullanılabilir.

Keywords

• çevrimiçi arkadaşlık
• geçerlilik
• güvenilirlik
• ölçek uyarlaması
• üniversite öğrencileri

Turkish Adaptation of the Online Friendship Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to adapt the Online Friendship Scale, originally developed in Indonesia, into Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted with 404 undergraduate students from various universities in Turkiye. Construct validity was tested using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed via Cronbach’s alpha (α), McDonald’s omega (ω), Composite Reliability (CR), and test-retest (ICC). Results: EFA revealed a four-factor structure explaining 74.52% of total variance (KMO=0.828; Bartlett’s χ²=3027.95, p<.001). CFA supported the model fit. Internal consistency was high (α=0.889 overall; subscales ranged from α=0.863 to 0.916). ICC values for test-retest reliability were all above 0.80, indicating strong temporal stability. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Online Friendship Scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing online friendship dynamics among young adults. It may serve as a useful instrument in psychosocial and educational studies.

Keywords

• online friendship
• validity
• reliability
• scale adaptation
• university students

References

1. Aydın, B., & San, S. V. (2011). Internet addiction among adolescents: The role of self-esteem. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3500-3505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.325
2. Barış, V. K., & Seren Intepeler, S. (2019). Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Turkish version of the Self-Efficacy for Preventing Falls-Nurse. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(8), 1791-1800. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12878
3. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
4. Byrne, B.M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421
5. Chan, D. K. S., & Cheng, G. H. L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities at different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/026540750404283
6. Chen, X., Luo, L., Jiang, L., Shi, L., Yang, L., Zeng, Y., Li, F., & Li, L. (2021). Development of the nurse's communication ability with angry patients scale and evaluation of its psychometric properties. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(6), 2700–2708. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14788
7. 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, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
8. Demir, M., & Özdemir, M. (2010). Friendship, need satisfaction and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5

9. Geertz, C. (1962). The rotating credit association: A "middle rung" in development. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 10(3), 241-263. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1151976
10. Helmi, A., Widhiarso, W., & Husna, A. (2017). The development of online friendship scale. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 7(4), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2017100102
11. Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (2017). Family, Self, and Human Development Across Cultures: Theory and Applications (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315205281
12. Kaşıkcı, D. N., Çağıltay, K., Yılmaz, T. K., Kurşun, E., Ogan, C. (2014). Türkiye ve Avrupa’daki çocukların internet alışkanlıkları ve güvenli internet kullanımı. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 230-243. https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/1867
13. Lexell, J. E., & Downham, D. Y. (2005). How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(9), 719–723. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000176452.17771.20
14. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1
15. McKenna, K., Green, A., & Gleason, M. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246
16. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
17. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
18. Rahmawati, A., Fitriana, D., & Nur Pradany, R. (2020). A systematic review of excessive social media use: Has it really affected our mental health? Jurnal Ners, 14(3), 213-216. https://doi.org/10.20473/jn.v14i3.17061
19. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
20. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
21. Sikka Kainth, J., & Verma, H. V. (2011). Consumption values: Scale development and validation. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 8(2), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/09727981111175993
22. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2023). Youth in statistics, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
23. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
24. Yelpaze, İ., Deniz, M. E., & Satıcı, B. (2021). Association between social connectedness and well-being: A study of the mediating role of psychological vulnerability. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 11(62), 367-382. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1001712