Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği Kısa Formunun Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Analizi

Year 2018, Volume: 9 Issue: 16, 731 - 759, 30.12.2018

Ömer Turunç , Hamza Bahadır Eser , Mehmet Dinç

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.480175

Abstract

Araştırmada orijinal formu 20-maddeli olan, Infante
ve Rancer (1982) tarafından geliştirilen Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği’nin kısa
formunun Türkçe geçerleme çalışması yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlilik çalışması
beş temel süreç kapsamında yürütülmüştür. Bu süreçler; ölçek belirleme,
örneklemin belirlenmesi, tercüme, analiz ile karşılaştırma ve değerlendirme
aşamalarından oluşturulmuştur. Bu aşamalarda evrensel ve güncel uygulamalardan
yola çıkılarak en etkin analiz ve karşılaştırma yöntemleri kullanılmaya
çalışılmıştır. Araştırma Isparta ilinde faaliyet gösteren Süleyman Demirel
Üniversitesi İktisadi ve idari Bilimler fakültesinde yürütülmüştür. On bir ayrı
bölümde eğitim alan lisans öğrencileriyle anketler yüz yüze uygulanarak veriler
toplanmıştır. Kısaltılmış Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliğini test
etmek için Brislin ve arkadaşları (1973) tarafından izlenen yöntem takip
edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda ölçek çeviri ve geri-çeviri yöntemiyle Türkçe’ye
çevrilmiş ve kadın (n= 997) ve erkek (n=564) toplam 1561 üniversite öğrencisinde
uygulanmıştır. Ölçek, iki ayrı örneklemde farklı zamanlarda uygulanan keşfedici
ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, içsel tutarlılık analizleri ile
karşılaştırmalar yapılarak sınanmıştır. Keşfedici faktör analizi sonucunda hem
kadın hem de erkek öğrenci örnekleminde Kısaltılmış Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği’nin
orijinaline uyumlu iki alt boyutlu hali (yaklaşma ve kaçınma boyutu)
doğrulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda da kadın ve erkek örneklem
grubu katılımcılarında uyum iyiliği değerleri eşik değerler ve üzerinde
gerçekleşmiş, bu değerler ölçeğin iki boyutlu yapısını doğrulamıştır. Yürütülen
analizler sonucunda 10-maddelik tartışmacı tutum ölçeği kısa formunun güvenilir
ve geçerli bir ölçüm aracı olduğu ve yaklaşmacı - kaçınmacı olarak iki alt boyuttan
oluştuğu geçerlenmiştir.

Keywords

Yapı Geçerliliği, Güvenilirlik Analizi, Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği, Doğrulayıcı FaktörAnalizi

The Analysis of Turkish Validity and Reliability on the Short Version of Argumentativeness Scale

Abstract

In this research, the validation
study on the Turkish version of the short form of the Argumentativeness Scale,
which is developed by Infante and Rancer (1982), was performed. The
validity study of the Argumentativeness Scale was carried out within the scope
of five main processes. These processes consist of stages as determining the
scale, determining the sample, translating, analyzing, and comparing and
evaluating. At these stages, it is tried to use the most effective analysis and
comparison methods based on universal and current applications. The study was
conducted in Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences in Isparta. In this faculty, face-to-face surveys were
conducted with the undergraduate students who were educated in 11 different departments.
The scale was applied to two different groups and the validity was determined.
The method followed by Brislin et al. (1973) was used to test the construct
validity of the short version of Argumentativeness Scale. In this context, scale was translated into Turkish by translation and
back-translation method and was applied to a total of 1561 as female (n = 997)
and male (n = 564) a total of 1561 undergraduate students. The scale was tested
by using factor analyzes and internal consistency analyzes at different times
in two separate samples.  As a result of
the exploratory and confirmatory analyzes conducted, it was validated that the
10-item argumentativeness scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool and
consisted of two sub-dimensions as approaching-avoidant. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, two
sub-dimensions (approaching and avoiding dimension) of the Short Version of
Argumentativeness Scale, which were compatible with the original, were
confirmed in both female and male students. As a result of confirmatory factor
analysis, the goodness of fit values ​​of the female and male sample group were
above the threshold values ​​and these values 
​​confirmed the two-dimensional structure of the scale. As a result of the analyzes conducted, it was validated that the 10-item
argumentativeness scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool and consisted
of two sub-dimensions as approaching-avoidant.

Keywords

Argumentativeness Scale, Construct Validity, Reliability Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis

References

• Alcala, C.G. (2012). The development and testing of the spanish – language versions of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akron Üniversitesi.
• Anderson, C.M. ve Martin, M.M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports, 12, 21-31.
• Avtgis, T.A. ve Rancer, A.S. (2002). Aggressive communication across cultures: a comparison of aggressive communication among United States, New Zealand and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(2), 191-200.
• Avtgis, T.A., Rancer, A.S., Kamjeva, P.A. ve Chorry, R.M. (2008). Argumentative and aggressive communication in bulgaria: Testing for conceptual and methodological equivalence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 17-24.
• Bayer, C. ve Cegala, D. (1992). Traits verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness: relations with parenting style. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 301-310.
• Blickle, G. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement of argumentativeness: A decade later. Psychological Reports, 77, 99-110.
• Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., Thorndike, R. M. (1973).Cross-cultural research methods, New York: John Wileyve Sons Pub.
• Cann, A., Norman, A.M., Welbourne, J.L. ve Calhaun, L.G. (2008). Attachment styles, conflict styles and humour styles: interrelationships and associations with relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22, 131-146.
• Croucher, S.M., Oommen, D., Hicks, M.V., Holody, K.J., Anarbeava, J., Yoon, K., Spencer, A., March, C. ve Aljahli, A.I. (2010). The effects of self-construal and religiousness on argumentativeness: a cross-cultural analysis. Communication Studies, 61, 135-155.
• Croucher, S.M., DeMaris, A., Diers-Lawson, A.R. ve Roper, S. (2017). Self-reporting and the argumnetativeness scale: an emprical examination. Argumentation, 31, 23-43.
• Daly, J.A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and directions. İçinde J.C. McCroskey ve J.A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and Interpersonal Communication, (pp. 13-41). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
• Hamilton, M.A. ve Mineo, P.J. (2002). Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: a meta-analytic review. İçinde M. Allen, R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle ve N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal Communication Research: Advances through Meta-Analysis(pp. 281-314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
• Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21 (5), 967–988.
• Infante, D.A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in situatins requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265-272.
• Infante, D.A. (1987). Aggressiveness. İçinde J.C. McCroskey ve J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and Interpersonal Communication(pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Infante, D.A. (1988).Arguing Constructively Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.
• Infante, D.A. (1989). Response to high argumentatives: message and sex differences. Southern Communication Journal, 54, 159-170.
• Infante, D.A., Anderson, C.M., Martin, M.M., Herington, A.D. ve Kim, J. (1993). Subordinates’ satisfaction and perceptions of superiors’ compliance-gaining tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and style. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 307-326.
• Infante, D.A. ve Gorden, W.I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication profiles: ımplications for ındependent-mindedness and upward effectiveness. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 73-80.
• Infante, D.A. ve Gorden, W.I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as a predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37, 81-90.
• Infante, D.A. ve Gorden, W.I. (1991). How employees’ see the boss: test of an argumentative and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior. Western Journal of Communication, 55, 294-304.
• Infante, D.A. ve Rancer, A.S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
• Infante , D.A. ve Wigley, C.J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: an ınterpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.
• Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S. ve Womack, D.F. (2003). Building Communication Theory, (4th Edition). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
• Infante, D.A. ve Rancer, A.S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: a review of recent theory and research. İçinde B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook(Vol. 19, pp. 319-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S. ve Wigley, C.J. (2011). In defense of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales.Communication Quarterly, 59, 145-154.
• Infante, D.A., Step, M.M. ve Horvath, C.L. (1997). Counterattitudinal advocacy: when high argumentatives are more persuasible?. Communication Research Reports, 14, 79-87.
• Kotowsky, M.R., Levine, T.R., Baker, C.R. ve Bolt, J.M. (2009). A multitrait – multimethod validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales.Communication Monographs, 76(4), 443-462.
• Johnson, A.J., Averbeck, J.M., Kelley, K.M. ve Liu, S.J. (2011). When serial arguments predict harm: examining the ınfluences of argument function, topic of the argument, perceived resolvability and argumentativeness. Argumentation ve Advocacy, 47, 214-227.
• Kaya, O.N. ve Kılıç, Z. (2008). Development of elemantary school students argumentativeness in science courses.Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9(1), 87-95.
• Levine, T.R. ve Kotowsky, M.R. (2010). Measuring argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: psychometric concerns and advances. İçinde T.A. Avtgis ve A.S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, Aggression and Conflict: New Directions in Theory and Research (pp: 67-81). New York: Taylor ve Francis.
• Limon, M.S. ve La France, B.H. (2005). Communication traits and leadership emergence: examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication apprehension and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 123-133.
• Martin, M.M. ve Anderson, C.M. (1997). Aggressive communication traits: how similar are young adults and their parents in argumentativeness, assertiveness and verbal aggressiveness. Western Journal of Communication, 61(3), 299-314.
• Myers, S. A. (1998). Instructor socio-communicative style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 141-150.
• Myers, S. A.,ve Rocca, K. A. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and student participation in the college classroom. Manuscript Under Review. Scott A. Myers ve Ronda.
• Myers, S. A.,L. Knox (2000).Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and student outcomes.Communication Research Reports, 17 (3), 299-309.
• Öztürk, M. (2013). Argümantasyonun kavramsal anlamaya, tartışmacı tutum ve öz-yeterlik inancına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Rancer, A.S., Baukus, R.A. ve Infante, D.A. (1985). Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing.Communication Education, 34, 37-47.
• Rancer, A.S., Kosberg, R.L. ve Baukus, R.A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: ımplications for training in argument and conflict management.Communication Education, 41, 375-387.
• Rancer, A.S. (2004). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and persuasion. İçinde J.S. Seiter ve R.H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence and Compliance-Gaining (pp. 113-131). Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
• Rancer, A.S. (1998). Argumentativeness. İçinde J.C. McCroskey, J.A. Daly, M.M. Martin ve M.J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives(pp. 149-170). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Rancer, A.S. ve Avtgis, T.A. (2006). Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory, Research and Application.Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks: California.
• Seibold, D. ve Meyers, R. (1986). Co-participant perceptions of ınformation – gathering interviews: implications for teaching interviewing skills. Communication Education, 34, 106-118.
• Stewart, R. ve Roach, K. (1998). Argumentativeness and the theory of reasoned action. Communication Quarterly, 46, 177-193.
• Suzuki, S. ve Rancer, A.S. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61, 256-279.
• Suzuki, S. (2011). Trait and state approaches to explaining argument structures. Communication Quarterly, 59, 123-143.
• Tabachnick, B.,ve Fidell, L. (2012). Fidel], LS (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics. London: Pearson.
• Terlip, L. (1989). An examination of the relationship between type a behavior, verbal aggression and argumentativeness. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Oklahoma, Norman.