A study of reliability and validity of informal communication scale

Year 2014, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 83 - 100, 04.05.2015

Celal Teyyar Ugurlu

https://doi.org/10.17679/iuefd.64723

Cited By: 7

Abstract

Purpose

Validity and reliability studies about which fields informal communication is benefited from, to what extent informal education is at schools are carried out and it is aimed to develop a scale.

Method

The samples for informal communication scale are 25 primary school and 10 secondary school teachers in Sivas by a suitable sampling method from random sampling methods. This study is conducted in 670 of 1120 teachers, who turned back and are available to treat. Öğretmenlerin 360’ı erkek,310’u kadındır. For informal education scale, exploratory factor analysis is carried out at first, then confirmatory factor analysis. For the factor analysis, as a theoretic basis, communication, formal communication and informal communication are profited. For factor analysis, suitability of data is tested through Barlett Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) tests. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the process of testing formerly determined factors. CFA is a necessary application to test the theoretical structures. The factors, which are determined by exploratory factor analysis, are tested through confirmatory factor analysis. In this study as a whole; data input, material statistics, test statistics and exploratory factor analysis are examined by SPSS 17.0 and Confirmatory Factor Analysis is examined by Lisrel 8.7.

 

Results

Essential pre-examination is carried out in order to test the suitability of collected data to exploratory factor analysis with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Bartlett Sphericity tests. According to views, which count about 150 samples enough and KMO coefficient to be more than .80, it can be said that 237 samples are enough for this study. As a result of Bartlett Sphericity test, that chi-square value is p<0,01 is meaningful. These results show that factor analysis on the data can be carried out. The common variance of each item, explained by factors, is expected to be lower than .30. Common variance value is observed to be changing between .32 and .67. Evaluating the connectedness of items and factor loading in terms of whether to meet the acceptance level, there are not items having factor loading lower than .32.

Two conditions must be in order an item to be connected. First, an item should have factor loading higher than acceptance level (.32) among more than one factor. Second, the gap shouldn’t be lower than .10 between the values that the item has. 9^th item in the analysis is omitted because it cannot meet the demand. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, after examining the fit index, from the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis, friendship latent variable, effecting latent variable, entertainment latent variable are called as latent variables of informal communication scale. Initially, fit index, which is gained through the use of Lisrel 8.7, is examined. While evaluating the value, Chi Square (x²) Goodness of Fit Test, RMSEA, GFI, CFI, NFI, NNFI and AGFI are compared in value. According to these results, Chi Square (x²) Goodness of Fit Test value is 406.65 (P=0.0) is meaningful, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.06 and 0,00≤RMSEA≤0,10 is acceptable. Normal Fit Index (NFI) value is 0.87 and 0,80≤NFI≤0,95 is acceptable. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is 0.93 and 0,90≤CFI≤0,97 is acceptable value. Goodness of  Fit Index (GFI) is 0.83 and 0,80≤GFI≤0,95 is acceptable value. Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) value is 0.80 and 0,80≤AGFI≤0,90 is acceptable. That the Kay square exemption level (χ²/sd) is below 5 shows the suitability of model and data fit acceptable.

Discussion

Informal relations are accepted as important means for communication in organizations. Formal and informal relations in each organization shape the individual relations, the existence of organization and organizational management structure. Especially informal networks undertake the role of individuals’ social, institutional, information and individual requirements. As a result of this study, after examining the sub factors of 24 item scale, first factor is gathered under “Friendship” and includes s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7, s8. Second factor is gathered under “Entertainment” and includes s9, s10, s11, s12, s13 Third factor is gathered under “Effecting” and includes s14, s15, s16, s18 Fourth factor is gathered under “Information” s19, s20, s21, s22, s23, s24, s25 .and includes,

Conclusion

A reliable and valid scale has been developed in order to determine informal communication levels and to find out on which fields these levels intensify. Samples for this study are teachers at primary and secondary schools.

Keywords

informal, informal communication, informal relation, developing a scale

İnformal İletişim Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırma, okullarda informal iletişim düzeyini ve informal iletişimin hangi boyutlardan oluştuğunu belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışmasıdır. İnformal iletişim ölçeği için çalışma grubu, Sivas il merkezindeki ilköğretim ve ortaöğretim okullarından seçkisiz olmayan örnekleme yöntemlerinden uygun örnekleme yoluyla 25 ilköğretim okulu  ve 10 ortaöğretim okulunda görev yapan bütün öğretmenlerdir. Okullarda görev yapan 1120 öğretmenden geri dönen ve işlenmeye uygun olan 670 öğretmen üzerinden çalışma yürütülmüştür. Öğretmenlerin 360’ı erkek, 310’u kadındır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda “informal iletişim ölçeği” dört faktörlü bir ölçek olarak kabul edilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda, ölçeğin alt faktörleri, birinci faktör “Arkadaşlık” ikinci faktör “Eğlenme” üçüncü faktör “Etkileme” dördüncü faktör “Bilgi” başlıklarıyla isimlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışma ile okullarda informal iletişim düzeylerini belirlemek ve bu düzeylerin hangi alanlarda yoğunlaştığını tespit etmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir.

Keywords

İnformal, informal işletişim, informal ilişki, ölçek geliştirme

References

• Aydın, M. (1994). Eğitim yönetimi, Ankara: Hatiboğlu.
• Aylor, B. ve Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education, 52 (2), 122–134.
• Berkos, K.M. (2003). The effects of message direction and sex differences on the interpretation of workplace gossip, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertaion, Louisiana State University.
• Campbell, D.E., ve Campbell, T.A. (1988). A new look at informal communication the role of the physical environment, Environment and Behavior, 20(2),211-226.
• Crampton,S.M., Hodge, J.W., ve Mishra, J.M. (1998). The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Puclic Personnel Managemant, 27 (7), 569-584.
• Crnkovic, G.D., Anokhina, M.( 2008). Workplace gossip and rumor: The information ethics perspective, www.ccsr.dmu.ac.uk, erişim:01/10/2010.
• Çakır, M. (2011). Teknoloji-Donanımlı ve kazanım odaklı öğrenme ortamı envanterinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(4), 1949-1963.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu,G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik, SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem
• Değer, M. (2008). Eğitim psikolojisi, sosyal öğrenme kuramı. (Ed: İ. Yıldırım), Ankara: Anı.
• Dökmen, Ü. (2003). İletişim çatışmaları ve empati. 22.Baskı, İstanbul: Sistem.
• Erdoğan, İ. (2005). İletişimi anlamak. Ankara: Erk.
• Foster, E.K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78–99.
• Gürüz, D. ve Özdemir, Y.G. (2004). İletişimci gözüyle insan kaynakları yönetimi. İstanbul: Media.
• Gouveıa, C.D., Vuuren, L.V. ve Crafford, A. (2005) Towards a typology of gossip in the workplace. Journal of Human Management, 3(2), 56-68.
• Hage, J., Aıken, M. (1971) Organization structured communications, American Sociological Review, 36, 860-871.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil.
• Karasar, N. (2003). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel.
• Kayaalp, İ. (2002). Eğitimde iletişim dili. İstanbul: Bilge.
• Kniffin, K.M., Wilson, D.S. (2005). Utilities of gossip across organizational levels. Human Nature, 16 (3), 278-292.
• Kocabay, H. (2007) Bir dedikodu iletim mekanı olarak internet sitelerinde forumlar. Milli Folklor,19 (75) 121-125.
• Kraunt, R.E., Fish, R.S., Roof, R.W. ve Cholfante, B.C. (2002). Informal communication in organizations: form, function, and technology. Bellcore Morristown, NJ 07962
• Marvel A.J. (2006). The Experienceof fallowers: İnvestigating a link between the informal communication netwoork and leadership. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Regent University. USA.
• Michelson, G., Mouly, V.S. (2002). ‘You didnn’t hear it from us but…’:Towards an understanding of rumour and gossip organizationz. Australian Joornal of Management, 27, 57-65.
• Prietula, M. ve Carley, K.M. (2006). Gossip matters: Destabilization of an organization by injecting suspicion. Chapter to appear in: A. Kott (Ed.), Information Walfare and Organizational Performance, Atlanta.
• Strauus, D. (2008). Scholarly communication. Communicatio, 4 (1), 113-129.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlik, Ankara: Seçkin.
• Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007) Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş (Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları). Ankara: Ekinoks.
• TDK, (1981) Türkçe sözlük. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
• Uzun, N.B., Gelbal, S. ve Öğretmen, T. (2010). TIMMS-R Başarı ve duyuşsal özellikler arasındaki karşılaştırılması, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 531-544. ve modelin cinsiyetler bakımından
• Zıllıoğlu, M. (1996). İletişim nedir? 2.Baskı, İstanbul: Cem.
• Waddington, K. (2005). Using diaries to explore the characteristics of work-related gossip: methodological considerations from exploratory multimethod research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 221–236.
• Waldstrom, C. (2001.) Informal networks in organizations: A literature review. www.org.hha.dk/org/dd (erişim:20/10/2010)