Cognitive Control and Cognitive Flexibility in the Context of Stress: A Scale Adaptation

Abstract

The purpose of the current research study is to adapt The Cognitive Control and Flexibility Questionnaire (CCFQ; Gabrys, Tabri, Anisman, & Matheson, 2018), which aims to measure the levels of cognitive control over emotions, appraisal and coping flexibility of individuals, into Turkish. The psychometric properties of the scale were tested in three stages in which the participants were university students. The first stage of the research, aimed to test the linguistic equivalence of the instrument, was conducted with 47 participants (66% female, 34% male), the second stage, aimed to test the construct validity and reliability of the measuring instrument, was conducted with 241 participants (65% female, 35% male), the third stage, aimed at examining the relationship of the measuring instrument with other structures, internal consistency, substance validity and reliability values, was conducted with 352 participants (45% female, 55% male). The psychometric properties of the scale were investigated by linguistic equivalence, item analysis, construct validity and Cronbach’s alpha reliability. The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory, The Dispositional Hope Scale and The Perceived Stress Scale were used to test the validity. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor structure of the scale, Cognitive Control over Emotion and Appraisal and Coping Flexibility, has adequate fit values. As expected, it was found that the scale has positive and significant relationships with cognitive flexibility and dispositional hope, and negative and significant relationship with perceived stress. In the second and the third phases of the study, Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients were found to range from .85 to .91. In conclusion, the research findings indicate that the Turkish Form of CCFQ is a valid and reliable tool for the measurement of cognitive control over emotion and appraisal, and the coping flexibility of the Turkish university students in the context of stress. 

Keywords

• Cognitive control,cognitive flexibility,scale adaptation,validity,reliability

Stresli Durumlarda Bilişsel Kontrol ve Bilişsel Esneklik: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, stresli durumlarda bireylerin duygular üzerinde bilişsel kontrol ile değerlendirme ve başa çıkma esnekliğini ölçme amacı taşıyan Bilişsel Kontrol ve Esneklik Ölçeği’nin (The Cognitive Control and Flexibility Questionnaire; Gabrys, Tabri, Anisman ve Matheson, 2018) Türkçe’ye uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Ölçeğin psikometrik özellikleri, katılımcılarının üniversite öğrencileri olduğu üç farklı aşama ile sınanmıştır. Araştırma, ölçüm aracının dilsel eş değerliğini sınamayı amaçlayan birinci aşamada 47 (%66 kadın, %34 erkek), ölçüm aracının yapı geçerliğini ve güvenirliğini sınamayı amaçlayan ikinci aşamada 241 (%65 kadın, %35 erkek), ölçüm aracının diğer yapılarla ilişkilerinin, iç tutarlılığının, madde geçerliğinin ve güvenirlik değerlerinin incelenmesini amaçlayan üçüncü aşamada 352 (%45 kadın, %55 erkek) olmak üzere toplam 640 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçüm aracının özellikleri dilsel eşdeğerlik, madde analizi, yapı geçerliği ve Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik sınama yöntemleriyle incelenmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlik sınamaları için katılımcılara Bilişsel Esneklik Envanteri, Sürekli Umut Ölçeği ve Algılanan Stres Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Yapı geçerliği için gerçekleştirilen doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları ölçeğin Duygular Üzerinde Bilişsel Kontrol ile Değerlendirme ve Başa Çıkma Esnekliği olmak üzere iki faktörlü yapısının yeterli uyum değerlerine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca beklenildiği gibi, Bilişsel Kontrol ve Esneklik Ölçeği, bilişsel esneklik ve sürekli umut ile pozitif, algılanan stres ile ise negatif yönde anlamlı ilişkiler göstermektedir. İkinci ve üçüncü aşama kapsamında alt faktörler ve ölçeğin tümü için hesaplanan Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayıları .85 ile .91 arasında değişmektedir. Sonuç olarak araştırma bulguları ölçeğin Türk üniversite öğrencilerinin stresli durumlarda duygular üzerinde bilişsel kontrol ile değerlendirme ve başa çıkma esnekliği düzeylerini değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğuna ilişkin destek sunmaktadır. 

Keywords

• Bilişsel kontrol,bilişsel esneklik,ölçek uyarlama,geçerlik,güvenirlik

References

1. Al Jabari, R. M. (2012). Relationships among self-esteem, cognitive and psychological flexibility, and psychological symptomatology. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). University of North Texas, USA.
2. Alper, A. ve Deryakulu, D. (2008). Web ortamlı probleme dayalı öğrenmede bilişsel esneklik düzeyinin öğrenci başarısı ve tutumları üzerindeki etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(148), 49-63.
3. Altunkol, F. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklikleri ile algılanan stres düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.
4. Badre, D. (2011). Defining an ontology of cognitive control requires attention to component interactions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 217-221. https://10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01141.x.
5. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. ve Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), 561-571. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/ archpsyc.1961.01710120031004
6. Bilgin, M. (2009). Developing a Cognitive Flexibility Scale: Validity and reliability studies. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(3), 343-353.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (14. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
8. Can, A. (2015). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (5. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.

9. Cardom, R. D. (2016). The mediating role of cognitive flexibility on the relationship between crossrace interactions and psychological well-being (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Kentucky, USA.
10. Cartwright, K. B. (Ed.). (2008). Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching. New York: Guilford.
11. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. ve Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396.
12. Cohen, L., Manion, L. ve Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
13. Coleman, D. (1993). Leisure based social support, leisure dispositions and health. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1993.11969933
14. Cousins, L. A., Tomlinson, R. M., Cohen, L. L. ve McMurtry, C. M. (2016). The power of optimism: Applying a positive psychology framework to pediatric pain. Pediatric Pain Letter, 18(1), 1-5.
15. Crowe, S. (1998). The differential contribution of mental tracking, cognitive flexibility, visual search, and motor speed to performance on Parts A and B of the Trail Making Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 585-591.
16. Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2014). Bilişsel Esneklik Ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 339-346. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3466
17. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
18. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M. ve Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation in the mood– creativity link: Towards a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739–756.
19. Dennis, J. P. ve Vander Wal, J. S. V. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4.
20. Doğan-Laçin, B. G. ve Yalçın, İ. (2018). Predictive roles of self-efficacy and coping strategies in cognitive flexibility among university students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(2), 358-371. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018037424.
21. Fu, F. ve Chow, A. (2017). Traumatic exposure and psychological well-being: The moderating role of cognitive flexibility. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 22(1), 24-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/153250 24.2016.1161428
22. Gabrys, R. L., Tabri, N., Anisman, H. ve Matheson, K. (2018). Cognitive control and flexibility in the context of stress and depressive symptoms: The Cognitive Control and Flexibility Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02219
23. Garcia-Garcia, M., Barceló, F., Clemente, I. ve Escera, C. (2010). The role of the dopamine transporter DAT1 genotype on the neural correlates of cognitive flexibility. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 31(4), 754-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07102.x
24. Gläscher, J., Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Bechara, A., Rudrauf, D., Calamia, M., Paul, L. K. ve Tranel, D. (2012). Lesion mapping of cognitive control and value-based decision making in the prefrontal cortex. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(36), 14681–14686. http://dx.doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1206608109
25. Gurvis, J. ve Calarco, A. (2007). Adaptability: Responding effectively to change. USA: Center for Creative Leadership.
26. Gülüm, İ. V. ve Dağ, İ. (2012). The Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability study of The Repetitive Thinking Questionnaire and The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 13(3), 216-223.
27. Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda ve C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment içinde (s. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
28. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
29. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
30. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
31. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
32. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
33. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
34. Jacobson, M. J. ve Spiro, R. J. (1995) Hypertext learning environment, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333.
35. Jacobson, M. J. ve Spiro, R. J. (1995) Hypertext learning environment, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333.
36. Johnco, C., Wuthrich, V. ve Rapee, R. M. (2014). The influence of cognitive flexibility on treatment outcome and cognitive restructuring skill acquisition during cognitive behavioural treatment for anxiety and depression in older adults: Results of a pilot study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 57, 55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.005
37. Johnco, C., Wuthrich, V. ve Rapee, R. M. (2014). The influence of cognitive flexibility on treatment outcome and cognitive restructuring skill acquisition during cognitive behavioural treatment for anxiety and depression in older adults: Results of a pilot study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 57, 55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.005
38. Jöreskog, K. G. ve Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
39. Jöreskog, K. G. ve Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
40. Kato, T. (2012). Development of the Coping Flexibility Scale: Evidence for the coping flexibility hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14(4), 353–363. http://dx.doi.org/0.1037/a0027770
41. Kato, T. (2012). Development of the Coping Flexibility Scale: Evidence for the coping flexibility hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14(4), 353–363. http://dx.doi.org/0.1037/a0027770
42. Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2. Baskı). New York: Guilford Press.
43. Koesten, J., Schrodt, P. ve Ford, D. J. (2009) Cognitive flexibility as a mediator of family communication environments and young adults’ well-being. Health Communication, 24(1), 82-94. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10410230802607024
44. Koster, E. H., De Lissnyder, E., Derakshan, N., and De Raedt, R. (2011). Understanding depressive rumination from a cognitive science perspective: the impaired disengagement hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 138–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.005
45. Koster, E. H., De Lissnyder, E., Derakshan, N., and De Raedt, R. (2011). Understanding depressive rumination from a cognitive science perspective: the impaired disengagement hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 138–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.005
46. Lazarus, R. ve Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
47. Lazarus, R. ve Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
48. Liao, A., Walker, R., Carmody, T. J., Cooper, C., Shaw, M. A., Grannemann, B. D., … ve Trivedi, M. H. (2019). Anxiety and anhedonia in depression: Associations with neuroticism and cognitive control, Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 1070-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.072.
49. Liao, A., Walker, R., Carmody, T. J., Cooper, C., Shaw, M. A., Grannemann, B. D., … ve Trivedi, M. H. (2019). Anxiety and anhedonia in depression: Associations with neuroticism and cognitive control, Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 1070-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.072.
50. Mackie, M. A., Van Dam, N. T. ve Fan, J. (2013). Cognitive control and attentional functions. Brain and Cognition, 82(3), 301-312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.004
51. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. ve McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410.
52. Marsh, H. W. ve Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364-390.
53. Marsh, H. W. ve Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364-390.
54. Martin, M. M. ve Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626.
55. Martin, M. M. ve Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626.
56. Morton, J. B., Ezekiel, F. ve Wilk, H. A. (2011). Cognitive control: easy to identify but hard to define. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 212-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011. 01139.x
57. Oettingen G. ve Gollwitzer P. M. (2002) Turning hope thoughts into goal-directed behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 304-7.
58. Robinson, M. J., Schmeichel, B. ve Inzlicht, M. (2010). A cognitive control perspective of self-control strength and its depletion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 189-200 http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00244.x
59. Robinson, M. J., Schmeichel, B. ve Inzlicht, M. (2010). A cognitive control perspective of self-control strength and its depletion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 189-200 http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00244.x
60. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve 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.
61. Schumacker, E. R. ve Lomax, G. R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., … ve Harney, P. (1991). The will and ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
63. Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., Shorey, H. S., Rand, K. L. ve Feldman, D. B. (2003). Hope theory, measurements, and applications to school psychology. Psychology Quarterly, 18, 122-139.
64. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.C. ve Luschene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
65. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
66. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. Baskı). USA: Pearson Education Limited.
67. Tarhan, S. ve Bacanlı, H. (2015). Sürekli Umut Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness and Well-being, 3(1), 1-14.
68. Tharp, J. ve Pickering, A. D. (2011). Individual differences in cognitive-flexibility: the influence of spontaneous eyeblink rate, trait psychoticism and working memory on attentional set-shifting. Brain and Cognition, 75, 119-125. http://dx.doi.10.1016/j.bandc.2010.10.010
69. Yerlikaya, E. E. ve İnanç, B. (2007, Ekim). Algılanan Stres Ölçeği’nin Türkçe çevirisinin psikometrik özellikleri (Psychometric properties of the Turkish translation of the Perceived Stress Scale). IX. Ulusal Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
70. Zaehringer, J., Falquez, R., Schubert, A. L., Nees, F. ve Barnow, S. (2018). Neural correlates of reappraisal considering working memory capacity and cognitive flexibility. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 12(6), 1529-1543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11682-017-9788-6