Turkish adaptation of Social Coping Questionnaire for gifted students

Year 2023, , 281 - 292, 02.10.2023

Ayça Köksal Konik

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1318904

Abstract

The objective of this research is to conclude the Turkish adaptation, validity, and reliability analysis of Swiatek's Social Coping Questionnaire (SCQ), which was first published in 1995. (However, the most recent 2001 version of the questionnaire is employed in this study.) A total of 266 gifted students (130 females and 136 males) participated in the study. The participants' ages ranged from 11 to 15. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the Turkish version of the scale retained the five-factor structure of the original scale. SCQ consists of 25 items in total and examines coping techniques using 5 subscales. Furthermore, the SCQ is a self-report, seven-point likert type questionnaire that assesses five coping styles: denying giftedness (7 item), social engagement (6 item), humor (3 item), and popularity (5 item). The factor loadings of the items are ranged from .79 to .40. The range of all item-total correlation coefficients was between .44 and .77. Cronbach Alpha Coefficients were determined as .77 for denying giftedness, .60 for social interaction, .60 for humor, .57 for popularity, and .48 for peer acceptance. Test re-test coefficients were as follows; .62 denying giftedness, .48 social interaction, .50 humor, .45 popularity, and .39 peer acceptance scale. The UCLA Loneliness Scale was administered to another gifted students sample to test the convergent validity of the instrument (n=102), as expected peer acceptance and humor subscale correlates negatively ( -.43) and denying giftedness subscale correlates positively (.27) with UCLA scores. The model fit was evaluated via confirmatory factor analysis using the structural equation modeling program. The analysis were performed on the 25 social coping items and resulting fit indices clearly revealed that the five-factor model of social coping provided a good fit to the data (x2 =437.08, df=262, (x2/df=1.66)), RMSEA=0.050, GFI= 0.88, CFI=0.85, NNFI=0.83, SRMR=0.072).

Keywords

Gifted student, Social coping, Social and Emotional Development, Social coping questionnaire

References

• Buescher, T.M. ( 1985 ). A framework for understanding the social and emotional development of gifted and talented adolescents. Roeper Review, 8(1), 10-15.
• Buyukozturk, S. (2008). Handbook of Data Analysis for Social Sciences: Statistics, Research Design, SPSS Applications, and Interpretation. (6th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academic Publishing.
• Coleman, L.J. & Sanders , M.D. (1993). Understanding the needs of gifted students: Social needs, social choices, and masking ones giftedness. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(1), 22-25 . Coleman, L.J., & Cross , T.L. ( 1988 ). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 41-56.
• Coleman, L.J., & Cross, T.L. ( 2000 ). Social-emotional development and personal experience . In K. Heller , F. J. Mönks , R. J. Sternberg , & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent ( 2nd ed., pp. 203-212 ). Pergamon.
• Cross, T.L., Coleman, L.J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. ( 1991 ). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1), 44-55.
• Cros , T.L., Coleman, L.J., & Stewart, R.A. (1995). Psychosocial diversity of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of the giftedness paradigm . Roeper Review, 17(3), 181-185 .
• Cross, T.L., & Swiatek, M.A. ( 2009 ). Social coping among academically gifted adolescents in a residential setting: A longitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 25-33 .
• Cross, T.L. , Andersen, L., Mammadov, S., & Cross, J.R. ( 2018 ). Social and emotional development of students with gifts and talent. In J. L. Roberts , T. F. Inman , & J. H. Robins (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 77-95). Prufrock Press .
• Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. Istanbul: Pegem Academic Publishing.
• DeLay, D., Zhang, L., Hanish, L.D., Miller, C.F., Fabes, R.A., Martin, C.L., Kochel, K.P., & Updegraff, K.A. ( 2016 ). Peer influence on academic performance: A social network analysis of social-emotional intervention effects . Prevention Science, 17(8), 903-913.
• Demir, A. (1986). UCLA yalnızlık ölçeğinin geçerlik güvenirliği (The validity and reliability of the UCLA Loneliness Scale). Journal of Psychology, 7(28), 14-18.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1−55.
• Janos, P. M., Fung, H. C., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Self-concept, selfesteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel different. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 78-82.
• Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2001). Lisrel 8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software. International Inc.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press.
• Manaster, G.J., Chan, J.C., Watt, C., & Wiehe, J. (1994). Gifted adolescents' attitudes toward their giftedness: A partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 176–178.
• Manor-Bullock, R., Look, C., & Dixon, D. N. (1995). Is giftedness socially stigmatizing? The impact of high achievement on social interactions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 319– 338.
• Mendaglio, S. ( 2012 ). Self-concept of gifted students: A multitheoretical perspective . In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 297-313 ). Prufrock Press .
• Milgram, R. (Ed.). (1991). Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors, and parents. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
• Neihart, M., Pfeiffer, S.I. , & Cross, T.L. (Eds.). (2016). The social and emotional development of gifted children; What do we know? (2nd Ed.). Prufrock Press.
• Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., & Ferguson, M.L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290–294.
• Secer, I. (2015). Psychological test development and adaptation process: SPSS and LISREL applications. Anı Publishing.
• Scholwinski, E., & Reynolds, C. M. (1985). Dimensions of anxiety among high IQ children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 125-130.
• Sumer, N. (2000) Structural equation modelling: Basic concepts and applications. Turkish Psychological Articles, 3, 49-73.
• Swiatek , M.A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents . Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(3), 154-161.
• Swiatek, M.A., & Dorr, R.M. (1998). Revision of the Social Coping Questionnaire: Replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10(1), 252-259.
• Swiatek, M.A. (2001). Social coping among gifted high school students and its relationship to self-concept . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 19-39.
• Swiatek, M.A. (2002). Social coping among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(1), 65-86.
• Swiatek, M.A., & Cross, T.L. (2007). Construct validity of the Social Coping Questionnaire . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 427-449.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tannenbaum, A.J. (1991). The social psychology of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 27-44 ). Allyn & Bacon .