Ebeveyn Arabuluculuğu Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Çocukların dijital ortamlarda fırsatlardan en üst düzeyde yararlanırken bu ortamlardaki risk ve tehlikelerin en aza indirilmesi oldukça önemlidir. Ebeveynlerin sergiledikleri yaklaşımlar, davranışlar ve stratejiler bu süreçte çocukların teknoloji kullanımları üzerinde belirleyici rol üstlenmektedir. Ebeveynlerin üstlendikleri bu roller ve sergiledikleri yaklaşımları ifade eden ebeveyn arabuluculuğu araştırmacılar tarafından incelenmektedir. Bu araştırmada “Ebeveyn Arabuluculuğu” ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması, ebeveynlerin arabuluculuk yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesi ve çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Öncelikle ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlanmasına yönelik çalışmalar yürütülmüş, daha sonra hazırlanan ölçek formu ebeveynlere uygulanarak sonuçlar analiz edilmiştir. Uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda Türkçeye çevrilen maddeler ölçek formunda düzenlenmiş, 6. ve 7. Sınıflarda öğrenim gören 318 öğrenci ebeveynine uygulanarak doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin uyum düzeylerinin yeterli olduğu görülmüş, birleşme güvenirliği ve yakınsak geçerliğinin sağlandığı belirlenmiştir. Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı hesaplanmış, ölçeğin ve her bir faktörün güvenilir olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Böylece alana geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek kazandırıldığı söylenebilir. İkinci aşamada ölçek formu 665 6. ve 7. sınıf öğrenci ebeveynine uygulanmış, ebeveynlerin daha çok kısıtlayıcı arabuluculuk yaklaşımlarına sahip oldukları; ancak aynı zamanda çocuklarıyla iletişim kurarak onları bilgilendirdikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca ebeveynlerin ve çocukların teknoloji kullanımlarının ebeveynlerin arabuluculuk stratejileri (EBAS) üzerinde farklılık oluşturduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırma bulgularının çocukların teknoloji kullanımında okul-aile işbirliği çerçevesinde alınacak önlemler ve yürütülecek faaliyetler açısından katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ebeveyn arabuluculuğu
• dijital ebeveynlik
• dijital fırsatlar
• çevrimiçi riskler
• ölçek uyarlama

Adapting the Parental Mediation Scale into Turkish and Analyzing It According to Various Variables

Abstract

It is critical for children to maximize the opportunities in digital environments while minimizing the risks and dangers in these environments. The approaches, behaviors, and strategies displayed by parents have a determining role in children's use of technology in this process. Researchers are interested in the roles and strategies that parents take on; this is known as parental mediation. The purpose of this study is to translate the "Parental Mediation" scale into Turkish, identify parents' mediation strategies (PMS), and analyze it using different variables. Firstly, we carried out studies on adapting the scale to Turkish, and then we analyzed the results by applying the prepared scale form to parents. In accordance with the advice of experts, we translated the scale items into Turkish. Then, we applied it to 318 parents of sixth and seventh grade students and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). According to the results, the scale's fit levels were sufficient and provided convergent reliability and convergent validity. Additionally, by calculating the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient, we determined that the scale and each factor were reliable. Therefore, it may be concluded that a valid and reliable scale has been provided to the field. The results revealed that parents had more restrictive mediation approaches than active mediation, but they also communicated and informed their children. PMS also differed significantly depending on how parent and their children used technology. We believe that the research findings may contribute to the measures to be taken and activities to be carried out within the framework of school-family cooperation in children's use of technology.

Keywords

• parental mediation
• digital parenting
• digital opportunities
• online risks
• scale adaptation

References

1. Adigwe, I., and van der Walt, T. (2020). Parental mediation of online media activities of children in Nigeria: A parent-child approach. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100041.
2. Akungu, O. A., Chen, S., and Su, C. H. (2024). Longitudinal association of adolescents’ perceptions of parental mediations and compulsive Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107989.
3. Álvarez, M., Torres, A., Rodríguez, E., Padilla, S., and Rodrigo, M. J. (2013). Attitudes and parenting dimensions in parents’ regulation of Internet use by primary and secondary school children. Computers & Education, 67, 69-78.
4. Bakó, R. K., and Tőkés, G. E. (2018). Parental mediation and Romanian young children’s digital practices. Revista Romana de Sociologie, 29(1/2), 23-36.
5. Bayzan, Ş. (2023). Parent opinions on distance education practices in the emergency remote education period in Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(2), 273-294.
6. Blunch, N. J. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling: Using SPSS and AMOS. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
7. Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
8. Bülbül, S. E. (2000). Çoklu karşılaştırma testleri ve bir örnek uygulama. Öneri Dergisi, 3(14), 95-100.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
10. Carvalho, J., Francisco, R., and Relvas, A. P. (2015). Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 99-108.
11. Chandrima, R. M., Kircaburun, K., Kabir, H., Riaz, B. K., Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., and Mamun, M. A. (2020). Adolescent problematic internet use and parental mediation: A Bangladeshi structured interview study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12, 100288.
12. Chen, V. H. H., and Chng, G. S. (2016). Active and restrictive parental mediation over time: Effects on youths’ self-regulatory competencies and impulsivity. Computers & Education, 98, 206-212.
13. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. A&C Black.
14. Chou, M. J., and Fen, C. F. (2014). Parent-child Play within Information Technology: A Quest for Quality Family Atmosphere. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 122, 273-282.
15. Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication theory, 21(4), 323-343.
16. Çelen, F. K., Çelik, A., and Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Çocukların internet kullanımları ve onları bekleyen çevrim içi riskler. Akademik Bilişim, 2(4), 645-652.
17. Darling, N., and Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological bulletin, 113(3), 487.
18. Dhir, A., Chen, S., and Nieminen, M. (2015). Psychometric validation of the Chinese compulsive internet use scale (CIUS) with Taiwanese high school adolescents. Psychiatric Quarterly, 86, 581-596.
19. Dogan, H., Bozgeyikli, H., and Bozdas, C. (2015). Perceived parenting styles as predictor of Internet addiction in Adolescence. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 167-174.
20. Duerager, A., and Livingstone, S. (2012). How can parents support children’s internet safety?
21. Dulkadir Yaman, N., and Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2022). Exploring Parental Mediation of Internet Use Through Young Children’s Perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7451-7469.
22. Durak, A. (2019). Ebeveyn arabuluculuğunun bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Bartın Üniversitesi.
23. Elsaesser, C., Russell, B., Ohannessian, C. M., and Patton, D. (2017). Parenting in a digital age: A review of parents’ role in preventing adolescent cyberbullying. Aggression and violent behavior, 35, 62-72.
24. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
25. Geržičáková, M., Dedkova, L., and Mýlek, V. (2023). What do parents know about children’s risky online experiences? The role of parental mediation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 141, 107626.
26. Gómez, P., Harris, S. K., Barreiro, C., Isorna, M., and Rial, A. (2017). Profiles of Internet use and parental involvement, and rates of online risks and problematic Internet use among Spanish adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 826-833.
27. Gözüm, A. İ. C. (2021). Çocukların oynadığı dijital oyunlara yönelik ebeveyn arabuluculuk stratejilerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. III. Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları ve Öğretmen Eğitimi Kongresi, Uşak Üniversitesi, Uşak.
28. Gözüm, A. İ. C., and Kandır, A. (2020). Okul öncesi çocukların dijital oyun oynama sürelerine göre oyun eğilimi ile konsantrasyon düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (41), 82-100.
29. Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., and Kotler, J. (2011, March). Always connected: The new digital media habits of young children. In New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
30. Gür, D., and Türel, Y. K. (2022). Parenting in the digital age: Attitudes, controls and limitations regarding children’s use of ICT. Computers & Education, 183, 104504.
31. Haddon, L. (2006). The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. The information society, 22(4), 195-203.
32. Han, Y., Kim, S., Lee, T., and Kim, S. (2024). Family factors and offline/online risk behaviors among South Korean adolescents: A multidimensional approach using latent profile analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 156, 107230.
33. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., and Mullen, M. (2008, September). Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. In 7th European Conference on research methodology for business and management studies (pp. 195-200).
34. Horzum, M. B., and Bektas, M. (2014). Examining the internet use aim and internet parental style of primary school students in terms of various variables. Croatian Journal of Education, 16(3), 745-778.
35. Huang, S., Lai, X., Li, Y., Wang, W., Zhao, X., Dai, X., ... and Wang, Y. (2023). Does parental media mediation make a difference for adolescents? Evidence from an empirical cohort study of parent-adolescent dyads. Heliyon, 9(4).
36. Kass, R.A., and Tinsley, H.E.A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120-138.
37. Kaşıkçı, D. N., Çağıltay, K., Karakuş, T., Kurşun, E., and Ogan, C. (2014). Türkiye ve Avrupa’daki çocukların internet alışkanlıkları ve güvenli internet kullanımı. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 230-243.
38. Kenny, D. A. (2010). Measuring model fit. 12 Nisan 2023 tarihinde http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
39. Khurana, A., Romer, D., Betancourt, L. M., Brodsky, N. L., Giannetta, J. M., and Hurt, H. (2015). Stronger working memory reduces sexual risk taking in adolescents, even after controlling for parental influences. Child development, 86(4), 1125-1141.
40. Kılıç, S. (2013). Örnekleme yöntemleri. Journal of Mood Disorders, 3(1), 44-6.
41. Kirwil, L. (2009). Parental mediation of children’s internet use in different European countries. Journal of Children and Media, 3(4), 394-409.
42. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principals and practice of structural equation modeling (3. baskı). Guilford Press.
43. Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage Publications Inc.
44. Koutamanis, M., Vossen, H. G., Peter, J., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2013). Practice makes perfect: The longitudinal effect of adolescents’ instant messaging on their ability to initiate offline friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2265-2272.
45. Lau, W. W. F., and Yuen, A. H. K. (2013). Adolescents’ risky online behaviours: The influence of gender, religion, and parenting style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2690e2696.
46. Lee, S.-J. (2012). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s internet use: Effective for what and for whom? New Media & Society, 15(4), 466e481.
47. Lee, S.-J., and Chae, Y.-G. (2012). Balancing participation and risks in Children’s internet Use: The role of internet literacy and parental mediation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), 257e262.
48. Livingstone, S., and Bober, M. (2006). Regulating the internet at home: contrasting the perspectives of children and parents. In: Buckingham, David and Willett, Rebekah, (eds.) Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media (pp. 93-113). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Livingstone, S., and Byrne, J. (2018). Parenting in the digital age: The challenges of parental responsibility in comparative perspective. In: Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age, Yearbook 2018 / [ed] Mascheroni, Giovanna, Cristina Ponte, & Ana Jorge, Gothenburg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg, 2018, p. 19-30
50. Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309-329.
51. Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 52(4), 581-599.
52. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of European children: full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries. EU Kids Online, Deliverable D4. EU Kids Online Network, London, UK.
53. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., and Staksrud, E. (2018). European research on children’s internet use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New media & society, 20(3), 1103-1122.
54. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., and Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing Risks for Children Online: The Role of Digital Skills in Emerging Strategies of Parental Mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82-105.
55. MacCallum, R. C., and Sehee, H. (1997). Power analysis in covarience structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2(32), 193- 210.
56. Meerkerk, G. J., Van Den Eijnden, R. J., Vermulst, A. A., and Garretsen, H. F. (2009). The compulsive internet use scale (CIUS): some psychometric properties. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 1-6.
57. Miltuze, A., Sebre, S. B., and Martinsone, B. (2021). Consistent and appropriate parental restrictions mitigating against children’s compulsive internet use: a one-year longitudinal study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26, 883-895.
58. Nikken, P., and Jansz, J. (2014). Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media and technology, 39(2), 250-266
59. Özsoy, D., and Atılgan, S. S. (2018). Kuzeydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi’ndeki 0-8 yaş grubu çocukların internet kullanımı ve bu kapsamda ebeveyn arabuluculuğu: Nitel bir araştırma. Selçuk İletişim, 11(2), 96-125.
60. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Kroff, S. L., and Memmott-Elison, M. K. (2018). The protective role of parental media monitoring style from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 445-459.
61. Park, S. K., Kim, J. Y., and Cho, C. B. (2008). Prevalence of Internet addiction and correlations with family factors among South Korean adolescents. Adolescence, 43(172).
62. Pedersen, S., and Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57–76.
63. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
64. Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., and Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and hanging out face-to-face: overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social networks. Developmental psychology, 48(2), 356.
65. Rodríguez-de-Dios, I., van Oosten, J. M. F., and Igartua, J.-J. (2018). A study of the relationship between parental mediation and adolescents’ digital skills, online risks and online opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 186-198.
66. Sarı, S., and Kunt, H. (2014). İlkokul ve ortaokul öğrencilerinin sınıf düzeylerine göre internet kullanım durumlarının belirlenmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (40), 263-280.
67. Sasson, H., and Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 32-38.
68. Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology press.
69. Sela, Y., Zach, M., Amichay-Hamburger, Y., Mishali, M., and Omer, H. (2020). Family environment and problematic internet use among adolescents: The mediating roles of depression and Fear of Missing Out. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106226.
70. Shin, W., and Ismail, N. (2014). Exploring the role of parents and peers in young adolescents’ risk taking on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(9), 578-583.
71. Shin, W., and Kang, H. (2016). Adolescents’ privacy concerns and information disclosure online: The role of parents and the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 114-123.
72. Shin, W., Huh, J., and Faber, R. J. (2012). Tweens’ online privacy risks and the role of parental mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 632-649.
73. Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., ... and Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries.
74. Steinfeld, N. (2021). Parental mediation of adolescent Internet use: Combining strategies to promote awareness, autonomy and self-regulation in preparing youth for life on the web. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1897-1920.
75. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapisal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49–74.
76. Symons, K., Vanwesenbeeck, I., Walrave, M., Van Ouytsel, J., and Ponnet, K. (2020). Parents’ concerns over internet use, their engagement in interaction restrictions, and adolescents’ behavior on social networking sites. Youth & society, 52(8), 1569-1581.
77. Şen, M., Demir, E., Teke, N., and Yılmaz, A. (2020). Erken çocukluk ebeveyn medya aracılık ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (53).
78. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (Fourth Edition). Boston: Ally And Bacon.
79. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., and Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6, pp. 497-516). Boston, MA: pearson.
80. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC, 10694(000).
81. Turgut, Y. E., and Aslan, A. (2016). Çocukların karşılaştıkları internet riskleri ve ebeveyn arabuluculuğu. In 4th International Instructional Technologies Teacher Education Symposium, Elazığ, Turkey (pp. 337-344).
82. Valcke, M., DeWever, B., Van Keer, H., and Schellens, T. (2011). Long-term study of safe internet use of young children. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1292-1305.
83. Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the internet for adolescents a decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1).
84. Van den Eijnden, R. J., Meerkerk, G. J., Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R., and Engels, R. C. (2008). Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: a longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 44(3), 655.
85. Vandoninck, S., D’Haenens, L., and Donoso, V. (2010). Digital literacy of flemish youth: How do they handle online content risks? Communications, 35(4), 397-416.
86. Yaman, F., Dönmez, O., Akbulut, Y., Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., Çoklar, A. N., and Güyer, T. (2019). Exploration of Parents’ Digital Parenting Efficacy through Several Demographic Variables. TED Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(199).
87. Yurdakul, İ. K., Dönmez, O., Yaman, F., and Odabaşı, H. F. (2013). Digital parenting and changing roles. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(4), 883-896.