Innovativeness Climate in Schools Scale Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2019, Volume: 11 Issue: 18, 364 - 383, 30.06.2019

Mahmut Polatcan

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.533385

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This research aims to develop a innovativeness climate in school scale.
The scale was applied to 193 working teachers in high schools at Yenimahalle
District, Ankara. According to the exploratory factor analysis results, KMO
value of innovativenes climate scale is .94 and the Bartlett Spherity test
value is 6243.07 (p=0.00). It is explained that variance of the is scale
73.23%. After the exploratory factor Analysis, the scale included 32 items and
five factors. These factors were labeled as support for innovation, resources
and opportunities, taking initiative, openness to innovation, teamwork and
adjustment. In Scale the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole scale was
found to be .95. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis results is supported
the exploratory factor analysis results. (Chi-square/Sd=1.65, RMSEA = .051,
GFI= .86, AGFI = .83, CFI = .97). The findings of the study revealed that the
scale was a valid and reliable instrument for measuring innovativeness climate.

Keywords

Innovativeness, Innovativeness climate, School

Okullarda Yenileşme İklimi Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, okullarda yenileşme iklimi ölçeğini
geliştirmektir. Ölçek madde havuzunun oluşturulmasında yenileşme iklimi
alanyazınındaki  yenileşme ve yaratıcı
iklim modellerinin yanı sıra geliştirilen ilgili ölçekler referans alınmıştır.
Ölçme aracının madde havuzu alan uzmanlarının görüşleri doğrultusunda taslak
forma dönüştürülmüştür.  Taslak ölçek
formu, Ankara İli Yenimahalle ilçesinde görev yapan 193 gönüllü öğretmen
üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre, yenileşme
iklimi ölçeğinin KMO değeri .94, Bartlett Küresellik testi değeri 6243.07’dir (p=.00).
Ölçek, varyansın % 73.23’ünü açıklamaktadır. Ölçek maddelerinin faktör yük
değerleri .49 ile .88 arasında değişmektedir. Analiz sonucunda 6 boyuttan
oluşan 42 maddelik ölçek; yenileşmeye destek, kaynaklar ve olanaklar,
inisiyatif alma, yenileşmeye açıklık, takım çalışması ve uyum boyutlarından
oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı .95’tir. Düzeltilmiş
madde toplam korelasyonları ise .59 ile .86 arasında değişmektedir. Ayrıca
uygulanan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları açımlayıcı faktör analizi
sonuçlarını desteklemektedir (X²/Sd=1.65, RMSEA = .051, GFI= .86,
AGFI = .83, CFI = .97). Yenileşme iklimi ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik
sonuçlarına göre, ölçeğin okullarda yenileşme iklimini ölçen bir araç olduğu ifade
edilebilir.

Keywords

Yenileşme, Yenileşme iklimi, okul

References

• Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 30-43. doi:10.1108/146010-69810199131
• Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. CO, US: Westview Press.
• Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., ve Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. doi:10.5465/256995
• Anderson, N., ve West, M. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: Development of the tci and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 53-66. doi:10.1080/13594329608414840
• Balcı, A. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Bryk, A., Camburn, E., ve Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781. doi:10.1177/0013161X99355004
• Bryman, A., ve Cramer, D. (2012). Quantitative data analysis with ibm spss 17, 18 ve 19: A guide for social scientists. London ve New York: Routledge.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Chen, C. J., Huang, J. W., ve Hsiao, Y. C. (2010). Knowledge management and innovativeness: The role of organizational climate and structure. International Journal of Manpower, 31(8), s.848-870. doi:10.1108/01437721011088548
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: Spss ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Damanpour, F. (1992). Organizational size and innovation. Organiza-tion Studies, 13(3), 375-402. doi:10.1177/017084069201300304
• Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105-123. doi:10.1080/13594329608414845
• George, J. M., ve Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interac-tional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513-524. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513
• Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., ve Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90. doi:10.1080/10400410709336883
• Jaiswal, N. K., ve Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 30-41. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002
• Jöreskog, K. G., ve Sörbom, D. (2001). Lisrel software version 8.51. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
• Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., ve Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education and Science, 126(1), 17-26.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences. In (2 ed.). New York, US: Guilford Press.
• Lomax, R. G., ve Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Mathisen, G. E., ve Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 119-140. doi:10.1207/s15326934-crj1601_12.
• Montes, F. J., Moreno, A., ve Fernández, L. (2004). Assessing the organizational climate and contractual relationship for perceptions of support for innovation. International Journal of Manpower, 25(2), 167-180, doi:10.1108/01437720410535972
• Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., ve Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670. doi:10.1177/0013161X10378689.
• Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., ve Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983-2017.
• Oldham, G. R., ve Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634. doi:10.5465/256657.
• Pallant, J. (2013). Spss survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using ibm spss (5 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pihie, Z. A. L., Asuimiran, S., ve Bagheri, A. (2014). Entrepreneurial leadership practices and school innovativeness. South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1-11. doi:10.15700/201412120955
• Remneland-Wikhamn, B., ve Wikhamn, W. (2011). Open innovation climate measure: The introduction of a validated scale. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 284-295. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00611.x
• Ren, F., ve Zhang, J. (2015). Job stressors, organizational innovation climate, and employees’ innovative behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 16-23. doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.992659
• Scott, S. G., ve Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607. doi:10.5465/256701
• Siegel, S. M., ve Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 553-562. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.553
• Somech, A., ve Drach-Zahavy, A. (2011). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), 684-708. doi:10.1177/0149206310394187
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Van Den Berg, R., ve Sleegers, P. (1996). Building innovative capacity and leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, A. Hart (Ed.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-699). Dordrecht: Springer.
• West, M. A., ve Sacramento, C. A. (2012). Creativity and innovation: The role of team and organizational climate. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 359-385). San Diego: Academic Press.