Adapting the Contextualized Reading Strategies Scale into Turkish Culture and Identifying its Psychometric Features

Abstract

Reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that necessitates the employment of various strategies before, during, and after reading. Researchers have developed a number of measurement tools to both identify these strategies and evaluate their extent of use among successful and poor readers. The aim of this study was to adapt the Contextualized Reading Strategies Scale (CReSS) into Turkish. The study data were obtained from two separate samples using a convenience sampling method. The first sample, Group A, was comprised of 435 secondary school students (F=246, M=189). The second sample, Group B, consisted of 384 secondary school students (F=228, M=156). The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a five-factor structure for the Turkish version of the CReSS, unlike the original version, which contains four subscales. This proposed new construct was further supported by confirmatory factor analysis, which yielded good fit indices. Furthermore, the reliability values were higher than the established threshold values for each subscale and for the whole scale. These results indicate that the Turkish version of the CReSS, with its robust psychometric properties, can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess the level of reading strategy utilization among Turkish secondary school students.

Keywords

• Reading strategies
• Contextual scale
• Scale adaptation
• Secondary school students

References

1. Akbaş, G., & Korkmaz, L. (2007). Ölçek uyarlaması (adaptasyon) [Scale adaptation]. Türk Psikoloji Bülteni [Turkish Psychological Bulletin], 13(40), 15-16.
2. Baş, G. (2013). Amerika Birleşik Devletleri eğitim sistemi: Karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma [American education system: A comparative study]. Journal of Educational Science, 1(1), 63-93.
3. Baydık, B. (2011). Okuma güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullanımı ve öğretmenlerinin okuduğunu anlama öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi [Examining the use of metacognitive reading strategies of students with reading difficulties and their teachers’ reading comprehension instruction practices]. Eğitim ve Bilim [Education and Science], 36(162), 301-319.
4. Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
6. Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New Yok, NY: Routledge.
7. Can, A. (2014). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi [Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
8. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2

9. 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), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
10. Çapık, C., Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2018). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: Güncellenmiş rehber [Intercultural scale adaptation stages, language and culture adaptation: Updated guideline]. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, 26(3), 199-210.
11. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
12. Çöğmen, S., & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2010). Üst bilişsel okuma stratejileri ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışmaları [Adaptation of metacognitive reading strategies questionnaıre to Turkish]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Pamukkale University Journal of Education], 28(28), 91-99.
13. Denton, C. A., Wolters, C. A., York, M. J., Swanson, E., Kulesz, P. A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). Adolescents' use of reading comprehension strategies: Differences related to reading proficiency, grade level, and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.016
14. Duke, N., Pearson, P.D., Strachan, S. & Billman, A. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teachng reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research says to about reading instruction (pp.286-314). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15. Evci, N., & Aylar, F. (2017). Derleme: Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin kullanımı [Use of confirmatory factor analysis in scale development studies]. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [The Journal of Social Science], 4(10), 389-412. https://doi.org/10.16990/SOBIDER.3386
16. Fielding, L. G. & Pearson P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works?. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-68.
17. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Gersten,R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research ,71(2), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
19. Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. R., & Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
20. Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading compherension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading compherension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S. & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing and writing self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26 (4), 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600404
22. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
23. 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
24. Karatay, H. (2009). Okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalik ölçeği [A metecognitive awareness inventory of reading strategies]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences], 9(2), 58-79. https://doi.org/10.11616/AbantSbe.242
25. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practise of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
26. Kırmızı, F. S. (2008). Türkçe öğretiminde yaratıcı drama yönteminin tutum ve okuduğunu anlama stratejileri üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of the creative drama method on the attitude and reading strategies in Turkish teaching]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Pamukkale University Journal of Education], 23(23), 95-109.
27. Kintsch, W. & Kintsch, E. (2005). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading comprehension assessment. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 187-214), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Madhumathi, P. & Ghosh, A. (2012). Awareness of reading strategy use of Indian ESL students and the relationship with reading comprehension achievement. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 131-140.
29. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L. & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1
30. Ministry of National Education (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı [Turkish course curriculum]. Ankara, Turkey: MEB Yayınları.
31. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
32. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence- based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33. Orçan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: which one to use first?. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
34. Öztürk, E. (2012). Okuma stratejileri üstbilişsel farkındalık envanteri'nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory]. İlköğretim Online [Elementary Education Online], 11(2), 292-305.
35. Özyılmaz, G., & Alcı, B. (2011). İlköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerine okuduğunu anlama stratejilerinin öğretiminin okuduğunu anlama başarısı üzerine etkisi [The effect of reading comprehension strategy instruction on reading comprehension achievement of 7th grade students]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 4(1), 71-94.
36. Pesa, N., & Somers, S. (2007). Improving reading comprehension through application and transfer of reading strategies (A Research Project). Chicago, Illinois: Saint Xavier University & Pearson Achievement Solutions. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496540.pdf
37. Pierangelo, R. & Giuliani, G. (2008). Teaching students with learning disabilities: A step-by-step guide for educators. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
38. Souvignier, E. & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16, 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006
39. Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Psychological test development and adaptation process: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Ankara, Turkey: Anı.
40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
41. Taraban, R. Kerr, M. & Rynearson, K. (2004). Analytic and pragmatic factors in college students' metacognitive reading strategies. Reading Psychology, 25(2), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490435547
42. Taylor, S. (2018). Reading for Meaning: A guide to the research on best-practice teaching of comprehension in today’s world. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from https://www.oup.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/127622/PRIM_RFC_Whitepaper_Brochure_digital-V2.0.pdf
43. Weathington, B. L., Cunningham, C. J. L. & Pittenger, D. J. (2010). Research methods for the behavioral and social sciences. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
44. Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Springer.
45. Zimmerman, B.J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.