Adaptation of The Nomophobia Scale to The Field of Physical Education and Sports: Alternative Models Strategy Measurement Model Test

Abstract

This research is; It is the testing of measurement models with the alternative models’ strategy of the Nomophobia Scale, which was developed by Yildirim and Correia. For this purpose, data obtained from a sample of 303 physical education and sports undergraduate students in the fall semester of the 2020-2021 academic year. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied for the construct validity of the scale. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency and CR coefficients were calculated for reliability. The decomposition and convergence validities of the scale were tested with three alternative models with 3, 2 and 1 factors, using the X2 difference tests of the predicted four-factor model (inability to access four-item information, losing five-item connection, inability to communicate with six items, not feeling comfortable with five items). The fact that the AVE values of the factors are lower than the CR values and the AVE values above .5 indicate that the factors have a combined validity. The fact that the AVE values of the factors are higher than the MSV and ASV values means that the factors have discrimination validity. In addition, the fact that the AVE scores of the factors are higher than the inter-factor correlations indicate that there is discrimination validity. From these results, the assumed four-factor model is the model that provides the best fit with the data and the scale can be used as a highly valid and reliable tool for the physical education and sports undergraduate student stage.

Keywords

• Nomophobia
• Physical Education
• Alternative Models’ Strategy
• Construct Validity

References

1. Adnan, M., Gezgin, D. M. (2016). A Modern Phobia: Prevalence of Nomophobia Among College Students. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 49(1), 141.
2. Akıllı, G. K., Gezgin, D. M. (2016). Examination of the Relationship Between Nomophobia Levels and Different Behavior Patterns of University Students. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(40).
3. Akın, N. K., Hülya, A. Ş. (2020) Evaluation of Tripartite Efficacy Perceptions in Sports: Adaptation of Self-Efficacy, Other-Efficacy and Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy Scales into Turkish. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 25(4), 271-288.
4. Arbuckle, J. L. (2016). IBM® SPSS® Amos™ User’s Guide.
5. Brickfield, C.F. (1984). Attitudes and Perceptions of Older People Toward Technology. P.K. Robinson, J. Livingston, and S.E. Birren (Eds.), Aging and Technological Advances içinde (ss.31-38). New York: Plenum Press.
6. Charness, N., Bosman, E. A. (1992). Human factors and age. F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The Handbook of Aging and Cognition içinde (ss.495-551). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Dixit, S., Shukla, H., Bhagwat, A., Bindal, A., Goyal, A., Zaidi, A., Shrivastava, A. (2010). A Study to Evaluate Mobile Phone Dependence Among Students of A Medical College And Associated Hospital Of Central India. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 35(2), 339.
8. Durnalı, M., Filiz, B. (2019). Adaptation of Delaware School Climate Survey – Student Version into Turkish: The Study of Validity and Reliability. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(6), 2651-2661

9. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication. Gökçearslan, Ş., Solmaz, E., Kukul, V. (2017). Mobile Learning Readiness Scale: An Adaptation Study. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 7(1), 143-157.
10. Güğerçin, U., Aksay, B. (2017 Turkish Adaptation of Dean’s Alienation Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study Int. Journal of Management Economics and Business, 13(1), 137-154.
11. Gürbüz, S. (2019). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
12. Gürbüz, S., Erkuş, A., Sığrı, Ü. (2010). A New Antecedent of Job Performance and Job Satisfaction: Core Self Evaluation, Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 69-76.
13. Hair JR, J. F., Black, W. C. (2010). Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson. Multivariate Data Analysis.
14. Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 294-294.
15. Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., Krause, K. L. (2008). First Year Students’ Experiences with Technology: Are They Really Digital Natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
16. King, A.L.S., Valença, A.M., Silva, A.C., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M.R. Nardi, A.E. (2013). Nomophobia: dependency on virtual environments or social phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140–144.
17. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3nd ed.). New York London: The Guilford.
18. Meydan, C., Şeşen, H. (2015). Structural Equation Model AMOS Applications. Detay Publishing:Ankara.
19. Şahin, F., Gürbüz, S. (2018). Research Methods in Social Sciences. Philosophy-Method-Analysis. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing
20. Şata, M., Çelik, İ., Ertürk, Z., Taş, U. E. (2016). The Study of Adapting Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS) For Turkish High School Students. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 7(1); 156, 169.
21. Yazicioğlu, Y., Erdoğan, S. (2004). SSPSS Applied Scientific Research Methods. Detay Publishing, Ankara, (s.53).
22. Yıldırım, C., Correia, A. P. (2015, August). Understanding Nomophobia: A Modern Age Phobia Among College Students. In International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies (pp. 724-735). Springer, Cham.
23. Yildirim, C., Sumuer, E., Adnan, M., Yıldirim, S. (2015). A Growing Fear: Prevalence of Nomophobia Among Turkish College Students. Information Development, 0266666915599025
24. Yorulmaz, M. (2019). Development of Ship Performance Scale According to Employee Perception: Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Euroasian Researches, 7(16), 1053-1065.