A SCALE DEVELOPMENT STUDY TO DETERMINE PSYCHOSOCIAL EVALUATIONS FOR SEAFARERS

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 1443 - 1456, 02.08.2023

Sena Öksüz , Umut Yanardağ

https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1220341

Abstract

Seafarers who spend long periods at sea and therefore have little contact with life on land face various difficulties because of their strenuous working conditions. While identifying those challenges and carrying out psychosocial interventions has the potential to increase the psychosocial well-being of seafarers, there is no scale to determine the psychosocial risks that seafarers contend with in the course of their work. This study was conducted with the aim of identifying the elements of the psychosocial risks they face so such a scale can be developed. A preliminary form was prepared for that purpose. Once the validity reliability rate of the form was determined on the basis of feedback, it was submitted to 735 members of the Turkish Seafarers ' Union residing in Istanbul and the resultant data was analyzed with SPSS and AMOS. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, 3 factors named “Psychological/Spiritual Problems”, “Problems Related to Family and Environment” and “Problems Related to Work Environment” and 26 items were determined. It was determined that the total variance explained was 60.02%. In the confirmatory factor analysis performed, the structure consisting of 26 items and 3 sub-dimensions provided good fit values. As a result, it was concluded that a 3-factor Psychosocial Evaluation Scale for Seafarers consisting of 26 items is a valid and reliable scale.

Keywords

Psychosocial evaluations, Seafarers, Work-related stress at sea, Quality of work life.

DENİZCİLERİN PSİKOSOSYAL DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNİ BELİRLEMEK İÇİN ÖLÇEK GELİŞTİRME ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Seafarers who spend long periods at sea and therefore have little contact with life on land face various difficulties because of their strenuous working conditions. While identifying those challenges and carrying out psychosocial interventions has the potential to increase the psychosocial well-being of seafarers, there is no scale to determine the psychosocial risks that seafarers contend with in the course of their work. This study was conducted with the aim of identifying the elements of the psychosocial risks they face so such a scale can be developed. A preliminary form was prepared for that purpose. Once the validity reliability rate of the form was determined on the basis of feedback, it was submitted to 735 members of the Turkish Seafarers ' Union residing in Istanbul and the resultant data was analyzed with SPSS and AMOS. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, 3 factors named “Psychological/Spiritual Problems”, “Problems Related to Family and Environment” and “Problems Related to Work Environment” and 26 items were determined. It was determined that the total variance explained was 60.02%. In the confirmatory factor analysis performed, the structure consisting of 26 items and 3 sub-dimensions provided good fit values. As a result, it was concluded that a 3-factor Psychosocial Evaluation Scale for Seafarers consisting of 26 items is a valid and reliable scale.

Keywords

Psychosocial evaluations, Seafarers, Work-related stress at sea

References

• Chapman, P. K. (1992). Trouble on board: The plight of international seafarers. NY: Ilr Press.
• Carotenuto, A., Fasanaro, A. M., Molino, I., Sibilio, F., Saturnino, A., Traini, E., & Amenta, F. (2013). The Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) for assessing stress of seafarers on board merchant ships. International Maritime Health, 64(4), 215-220.
• Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
• de Vet, H. C. W., Mokkink, L. B., Mosmuller, D. G., & Terwee, C. B. (2017). Spearman–Brown prophecy formula and Cronbach’s alpha: different faces of reliability and opportunities for new applications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 85, 45–49. https:// 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.013
• DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage publications.
• Doyle, N., MacLachlan, M., Fraser, A., Stilz, R., Lismont, K., Cox, H., & McVeigh, J. (2016). Resilience and well-being amongst seafarers: A cross-sectional study of crew across 51 ships. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 89(2), 199-209.
• Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642.
• Ercan, İ., & Kan, İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik.
• Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales.
• Hafez, A. A. N. (1999). Seafarers' social life and its effect on maritime safety with respect to Egyptian seafarers. World Maritime University Dissertations. 46.
• Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(3), 66 LP – 67. https://10.1136/eb-2015-102129
• Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416.
• Iversen, R. T. (2012). The mental health of seafarers. International Maritime Health, 63(2), 78-89.
• Maskey, R., Fei, J., & Nguyen, H. O. (2018). Use of exploratory factor analysis in maritime research. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 34(2), 91–111. https:// 10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.006
• MacLachlan, M., Kavanagh, B., & Kay, A. (2012). Maritime health: a review with suggestions for research. International Maritime Health, 63(1), 1-6.
• McLaughlin, H. L. (2012). Seafarers and seafaring. The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, 321-332.
• Mitropoulos, E. E. (2011). The year of the seafarer and the impacts of piracy. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 10(1), 1-5.
• Moss, P. A. (1994). Can There Be Validity Without Reliability? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5–12. https://10.3102/0013189X023002005
• Noar, S. M. (2003). The Role of Structural Equation Modeling in Scale Development. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(4), 622–647. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1004_8
• Oldenburg, M., Hogan, B., & Jensen, H. J. (2013). Systematic review of maritime field studies about stress and strain in seafaring. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 86(1), 1-15.
• Oldenburg, M., Baur, X., & Schlaich, C. (2010). Occupational risks and challenges of seafaring. Journal of Occupational Health, 52(5), 249–256.
• Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. In Psychological Methods (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 343–355). American Psychological Association. https://10.1037/1082-989X.5.3.343
• Rengamani, J., & Murugan, M. S. (2012). A study on the factors influencing the seafarers’ stress. AMET International Journal of Management, 4(1), 44-51.
• Sampson, H. (2013). International seafarers and transnationalism in the twenty-first century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Shi, Q. H., & Zhang, J. (2016). On shaping the professional psychology of maritime majors. Paper presented in 2nd International Conference on Social, Education and Management Engineering (SEME 2016).
• Shultz D. P., Shultz S. Psychology and challenges of the present-day work. PWN, Warszawa 2002.
• Slišković, A., Penezić, Z., (2015). Occupational stressors, risks and health in the seafaring population. Review of Psychology, 22, 29–39. https://10.21465/rp0022.0004
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson Boston, MA.
• Taşdelen, U., Aksoy, R., & Çakmak, A. F. (2016). Gemi adamlarinin iş-aile ve aile-iş çatişmasina ilişkin bir saha çalişmasi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2).
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53.
• Thanasegaran, G. (2009). Reliability and Validity Issues in Research. Integration & Dissemination, 4.
• Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient Alpha: A Reliability Coefficient for the 21st Century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377–392. https:// 10.1177/0734282911406668