The Abilene Paradox Scale in Sport (APSS): Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

This research aimed to examine the prevalence of the Abilene Paradox within a sports context, characterized by intense group dynamics, and to develop a psychometrically robust measurement instrument, the Abilene Paradox Scale in Sport (APSS). The scale development process involved collecting responses from 525 participants via digital platforms on a voluntary basis, with 345 responses utilized for exploratory factor analysis and 180 for confirmatory factor analysis. Data were systematically evaluated and prepared in accordance with the assumptions of multivariate statistical techniques. To determine the scale’s factor structure, we considered the scree plot, total variance explained (64.548%), and eigenvalues. Decisions regarding item allocation to factors were based on criteria including communalities, factor loadings, and the absence of cross-loadings. The EFA revealed a 16-item, two-factor structure for the APSS, comprising belonging and fit dimensions. This structure was subsequently validated through CFA on an independent sample, yielding additional evidence of reliability and validity. Fit indices for the measurement model included a χ²/df ratio of 2.32, a CFI of .90, a NNFI of .88, AVE values of .46 and .37, CR values of .85 and .80, a SRMR of .060, and a RMSEA of .087. These results indicate that the APSS demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties, establishing it as a reliable and valid tool for assessing the Abilene Paradox in sports settings.

Keywords

• Abilene Paradox
• group
• sport management
• group dynamics

Sporda Abilene Paradoksu Ölçeği (SAPÖ): Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırma, grup dinamiklerini yoğun olarak içinde barındıran spor ortamında, bireylerin Abilene Paradoksu düzeyinin ortaya çıkarılması ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Ölçek geliştirme aşamalarında, 345 açımlayıcı faktör analizi, 180 doğrulayıcı faktör analizi olmak üzere toplamda 525 bireyden gönüllülük esas alınarak dijital platformlar aracılığıyla yanıtlar toplanmıştır. İstatistiksel süreçlerde toplanan veriler kullanılacak çok değişkenli istatistiksel analizlerin sayıltıları doğrultusunda incelenerek düzenlenmiştir. Ölçeğin faktör sayısına karar verebilmek için yamaç eğim grafiği, açıklanan toplam varyans (%64.548) ve özdeğerler dikkate alınmıştır. Faktör maddelerine karar verebilmek için açıklanan ortak varyans, faktör yükleri ve maddelerin binişiklik göstermesi gibi ölçütler göz önünde bulundurulmuştur. Yapılan faktör analizleri sonucunda 16 madde ve iki faktörden (aidiyet ve uyum) oluşan “Sporda Abilene Paradoksu Ölçeği (SAPÖ)” yapısı keşfedilmiştir. Açımlanan bu yapı ek geçerlik ve güvenirlik kanıtları üretmek amacı ile bağımsız bir grup üzerinde uygulanarak DFA ile incelenmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonrası ölçme modelinin uyum iyiliği kriterleri χ2/sd (2.32), CFI (.90), NNFI (.088), AVE (.46; .37), CR (.85; .80), SRMR (.060) ve RMSEA (.87) biçiminde elde edilmiştir. Geliştirilen ölçeğin psikometrik nitelikler açısından spor ortamında güvenilir geçerli bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Abilene Paradoksu
• grup
• spor yönetimi
• grup dinamiği

References

1. Alpar, R. (2014). Applied statistics and validity-reliability with examples from sports, health and education sciences. Detay Publications.
2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics , 11(4), 959-975.
3. Ayre, C., & Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
4. Belsley, D. A. (1991). Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. John Wiley ve Sons.
5. Bernstein, I. (2000). Some consequences of violating SEM’s assumptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Southwestern Psychological Association, Dallas, TX.
6. Bilgin, N., Gülşen, M., Kutlu, A. & Pakyüz, S.Ç. (2019). The Turkish adaptation of employee silence and voice behaviour scale on academicians. EGE HFD., 35(3).103-114.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2022). Handbook of data analysis for the social sciences. (30th ed.). Pegem Akademi Publications.
8. Child, D. (2006). The Essentials of Factor Analysis. (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

9. Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A firstcourse in factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Çavuşoğlu, S., & Köse, S. (2019). Adaptation of the organizational silence scale to Turkish. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 19(2), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.11616/basbed.v19i47045.485266
11. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. (2nd ed.). Pegem Akademi Publications.
12. Daşcı, E., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2016). The development of the organizational silence scale: Validity-reliability study. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3548
13. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. McGraw-Hill.
14. Harvey, J. B. (1974). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9
15. Harvey, M., Novıcevıc, M. M., Huckley, M. R., & Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2004). The Abilene paradox after thirty years. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.008
16. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural aquation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
17. Kahveci, G., & Demirtaş, Z. (2013). Development study of organizational silence scale for teachers. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 12(43), 167-182.
18. Katkat, D. (2022). Component and coordination of sports organization. (2nd ed.). Gazi Bookstore.
19. Kalaycı, Ş., Albayrak, A. S., Eroğlu, A., Küçüksille, E., Ak, B., Karaltı, M. & Antalyalı, Ö. L. (2005). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Asil Broadcast Distribution.
20. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principle and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
21. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
22. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper & Brother Publishers.
23. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M.W. & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
24. Saraçlı, S. (2011). An application on comparison the extracting methods in factor analysis. Düzce University Journal of the Institute of Health Sciences, 1(3), 22-26.
25. Savaş, B.Ç., & Turan, M. (2023). Quiet quitting scale: Validity and reliability study. The Online Journal of Recreation and Sports (TOJRAS), 12(3), 442-453. https://doi.org/10.22282/tojras.1291075
26. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
27. Şehitoğlu, Y. (2010). Connections between organizational silence organizational citizenship behavior and perceptive employee performance [Doctoral Thesis, Gebze Institute of Technology]. CoHE THESIS CENTER
28. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Using multivariate statistics. Nobel Publications.
29. Yaşar, M. R. (2010). Gambling and bets. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(34), 138-171.
30. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46 (Special Issue), 74-85.
31. Yılmaz, V. & Çelik, H. (2009). LISREL ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi-I. Pegem Akademi Publications.
32. Yücedağlar, A., Gılıç, F., Uzun, N. B. & İnandı, Y. (2024). The quiet quitting of the teachers: A validity and reliability study. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 69, 227-251. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1313367
33. Yüksel, A. H. (2017). Analysis of organizational dysfunction: Dysfunctional momentum and the Abilene Paradox. Journal of Management and Economics, 24(3), 669-685. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.371958