Kendini Affetme İkili Süreç Ölçeğinin psikometrik özelliklerinin ileri düzeyde değerlendirilmesi: Cinsiyetler arasında ölçme değişmezliğine ilişkin kanıtlar

Year 2025, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 98 - 106, 31.08.2025

Fatih Aydın

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16994614

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Kendini Affetme İkili Süreç Ölçeğinin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma kapsamında bilhassa ölçeğin Türkçe formunun cinsiyetler arasında ölçüm değişmezliğinin test edilmesi planlanmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini 168 (%64,37) kadın ve 93 (%35,63) erkek olmak üzere toplam 261 üniversite öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 21,39 (SS = 2,91) olarak hesaplanmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Kişisel Bilgi Formu ve Kendini Affetme İkili Süreç Ölçeği Türkçe Formu kullanılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile elde edilen sonuçlar ölçeğin yapı geçerliğine ilişkin yeterli kanıtlar sunduğunu göstermiştir (X2/sd = 1,654, CFI = ,980, TLI = ,973, GFI = ,999, RMSEA = ,050, SRMR = ,067). Bunun yanı sıra, çoklu grup DFA cinsiyetler arasında şekilsel, metrik, skalar ve katı değişmezliğe ilişkin anlamlı bulgular ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, ölçeğin tümü için yakınsak geçerlik bulguları Pozitif Değere Yeniden Yönelim Alt Boyutu (PDYY) için sınırda iken (AVE = ,483), Kişisel Saygının Yenilenmesi Alt Boyutu (KSY) için yeterli düzeydedir (AVE = ,642). Son olarak, ölçeğin iç tutarlık güvenirliği (PDYY için McDonald ω = ,821 ve Cronbach’s α = ,817; KSY için McDonald ω = ,888 ve Cronbach’s α = ,886) ve iki yarı güvenirliği (PDYY için r = ,845; KSY için r = ,913) ile ilgili analizler iyi sonuçlar vermiştir. Sonuçlar Kendini Affetme İkili Süreç Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun üniversite öğrencileriyle kullanılmaya uygun, psikometrik olarak geçerli bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermiştir. Özellikle, ölçeğin kadın ve erkeklerde benzer ölçüm performansı gösterdiğine ilişkin kanıtlar ortaya koyulmuştur.

Keywords

Kendini affetme , ölçüm değişmezliği , cinsiyet , geçerlik

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma için etik kurul izni Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma Önerisi Etik Değerlendirme Kurulundan alınmıştır (Tarih: 19.06.2025, Sayı: 576210).

Further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Self-Forgiveness Dual Process Scale: Evidence of measurement invariance across gender

Abstract

The present study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Self-Forgiveness Dual Process Scale. Within the scope of the research, it was planned to test the measurement invariance of the Turkish version of the scale across genders. The study sample consists of 261 university students, comprising 168 (64.37%) females and 93 (35.63%) males. The mean age of the participants was calculated to be 21.39 (SD = 2.91). The Personal Information Form and the Turkish version of the Self-Forgiveness Dual Process Scale were used as data collection tools. The results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed that the scale provided sufficient evidence for the construct validity (X2/df = 1.654, CFI = .980, TLI = .973, GFI = .999, RMSEA = .050, SRMR = .067). In addition, multi-group CFA revealed significant findings regarding configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance across genders. In addition, convergent validity findings for the whole scale were borderline for the Value Reorientation (VRO) Subscale (AVE = .483), while they were sufficient for the Esteem Restoration (ERS) Subscale (AVE = .642). Finally, the analyses regarding the internal consistency reliability (McDonald ω = .821 and Cronbach’s α = .817 for VRO; McDonald ω = .888 and Cronbach’s α = .886 for ERS) and split-half reliability (r = .845 for VRO; r = .913 for ERS) of the scale exhibited good results. The results demonstrated that the Turkish version of the Self-Forgiveness Dual Process Scale is a psychometrically sound measurement tool suitable for use with university students. Specifically, evidence was presented indicating that the scale demonstrated similar measurement performance in both males and females.

Keywords

Self-forgiveness , measurement invariance , gender , validity

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the Sivas Cumhuriyet University Ethical Review Board for Social Sciences Research Proposals (Date: June 19, 2025, Number: 576210).

References

• Alavi, M., Visentin, D. C., Thapa, D. K., Hunt, G. E., Watson, R., & Cleary, M. (2020). Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(9), 2209-2211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399
• Aydın, F. (2025). Does attachment to God matter? Role of spiritual attachment in mental health through self-forgiveness: lessons from Turkish college sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1603654. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1603654
• Aydın, G., & Yerin-Güneri, O. (2017, May). Testing factor structure and reliability of the Turkish version of State Self Forgiveness Scale (SSFS) [Conference presentation]. EJER 4th International Eurasian Educational Research Congress. Denizli, Turkey.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
• Bugay, A., & Demir, A. (2010). A Turkish version of heartland forgiveness scale. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1927-1931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.390
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Chen, Y., Harris, S. K., Worthington Jr, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Religiously or spiritually-motivated forgiveness and subsequent health and well-being among young adults: An outcome-wide analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(5), 649-658. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1519591
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
• Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self‐forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40(2), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1996.tb00844.x
• Ersanlı, K., & Vural Batık, M. (2015). Development of the forgiveness scale: A study of reliability and validity. Turkish Studies-International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10(7), 19-32. http://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8201
• Fincham, F. D. (2022). Towards a psychology of divine forgiveness. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 14(4), 451-461. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000323
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step: A simple guide and reference (15th ed.). Routledge.
• Griffin, B. J., Norman, S. B., Weber, M. C., Hinkson Jr, K. D., Jendro, A. M., Pyne, J. M., Worthington Jr., E. L., & Maguen, S. (2024). Properties of the modified self‐forgiveness dual‐process scale in populations at risk for moral injury. Stress and Health, 40(5), Article e3413. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3413
• Griffin, B. J., Worthington Jr, E. L., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Maguen, S. (2018). Development of the self-forgiveness dual-process scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(6), 715-726. https://doi.org/10.1037/t70152-000
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self–forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621-637. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621
• Holmgren, M. R. (1998). Self-forgiveness and responsible moral agency. Journal of Value Inquiry, 32, 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004260824156
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Jeong, S., & Lee, Y. (2019). Consequences of not conducting measurement invariance tests in cross-cultural studies: A review of current research practices and recommendations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(4), 466-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422319870726
• Kaya, F., Odacı, H., & Aydın, F. (2023). Kendini Affetme İkili Süreç Ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin test edilmesi [Testing the validity and reliability of the self-forgiveness dual process scale]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.1110236
• Kim, J. J., Volk, F., & Enright, R. D. (2022). Validating the Enright self-forgiveness inventory (ESFI). Current Psychology, 41(11), 7604-7617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01248-4
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Li, C. H. (2016). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093
• Mauger, P. A., Perry, J. E., Freeman, T., & Grove, D. C. (1992). The measurement of forgiveness: Preliminary research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11(2), 170-180. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-41508-001
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Pyschometrika, 58(4), 525-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
• Mukaka M. M. (2012). A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal: The Journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 24(3), 69-71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576830/
• Myers, N. D., Ahn, S., & Jin, Y. (2011). Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: A Monte Carlo approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 412-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599773
• Noviyanty, H., Ismail, Z., Hamjah, S. B. H., & Mohamad, A. D. (2022, February). Spiritual psychotherapy and mental health: The forgiveness therapy in achieving spiritual well-being of drug addicts with depression disorders [Conference presentation abstract]. Second International Conference on Public Policy, Social Computing and Development (ICOPOSDEV 2021) (pp. 7-14). Atlantis Press.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Regalia, C., & Pelucchi, S. (2024). Forgiveness of self scale. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2576-2578). Springer International Publishing.
• Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 210-222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003
• Strelan, P. (2017). The measurement of dispositional self-forgiveness. In L. Woodyatt, E. Worthington, Jr., M. Wenzel, B. Griffin (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of self-forgiveness (pp. 75-87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60573-9_6
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
• Tangney, J. P., Boone, A. L., & Dearing, R. (2005). Forgiving the self: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 143-158). Routledge.
• Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., Heinze, L., Neufeld, J. E., Shorey, H. S., Roberts, J. C., & Roberts, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 313-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x
• Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
• Webb, J. R., Bumgarner, D. J., Conway-Williams, E., Dangel, T., & Hall, B. B. (2017). A consensus definition of self-forgiveness: Implications for assessment and treatment. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 4(3), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000138
• Wohl, M. J., DeShea, L., & Wahkinney, R. L. (2008). Looking within: Measuring state self-forgiveness and its relationship to psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400x.40.1.1.1
• Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2013). Self-forgiveness and restoration of an offender following an interpersonal transgression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 221-254. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.2.225
• Yucel, M., & Vaish, A. (2021). Eliciting forgiveness. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 12(6), Article e1572. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1572