Sporda Çok Boyutlu Takım Çalışması Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Takımların işleyişinin ve takım etkinliğinin temel öğesi grup süreçleridir. Bu süreçler, üyeler arasındaki etkileşimleri kapsar ve takımın amaçlarına ulaşma olasılığını artırmak için açıkça yapılan eylemler ve sözlü ifadelerle gerçekleştirilen takım çalışması davranışları gerektirir. Her ne kadar örgütsel alanda önemli sayıda araştırmaya konu olsa da takım çalışması ile ilgili araştırmaların spor psikolojisi alanında sınırlı sayıda oluşu, bu konuda daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu alandaki ihtiyacın son yıllarda kavramsal ve ampirik olarak ele alındığı görülmektedir (McEwan ve Beauchamp, 2014; McEwan ve diğ., 2018). Bu çalışmanın amacı McEwan ve diğerleri (2018) tarafından geliştirilen Sporda Çok Boyutlu Takım Çalışması Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlamasını (MATS-TR) gerçekleştirerek sporcu ve takım düzeyinde psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Bu çalışmanın örneklemini 42 takımdan 571 sporcu oluşturmuştur. Katılımcıların 401’i erkek (Yaşort. = 16.59, SS = 2.9), 170’i kadındır (Yaşort. = 17.04, SS = 3.8). Katılımcılar bir demografik bilgi formunu ve MATS’ın Türkçe versiyonunu doldurmuşlardır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğinin belirlenmesinde çok düzeyli doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin çok düzeyli güvenirliği, her iki analiz düzeyinde de birleşik güvenirlik katsayıları hesaplanarak belirlenmiştir. Faktör yapısına ilişkin çok düzeyli beş faktör analizi gerçekleştirilmiş ve analizler sonucunda MATS-TR’nin orijinal faktör yapısıyla uyum biçimde yapı geçerliğini sağladığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Çok düzeyli güvenirlik ile ilgili testler, ölçeğin her iki düzeyde iyi ölçüde güvenirliğine sahip olduğuna ilişkin kanıtlar sağlamıştır. Bununla birlikte ölçeğin yakınsama ve ayrışım geçerliklerine yönelik çeşitli kanıtlar elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgularla, MATS-TR’nin Türk sporcular üzerinde kullanılabilecek ölçüde psikometrik özellikler gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Takım Çalışması
• Spor Psikolojisi
• MATS-TR

Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

Group processes are fundamental to team functioning and effectiveness. These processes involve member interactions and require teamwork behaviors displayed during interactions through overt actions and verbal statements to increase the likelihood of achieving the team's purposes. Although teamwork has been a well-researched subject in the organizational field, there is a dearth of research in sport psychology on the subject, indicating a need for further exploration in this area. In recent years, this need has been addressed conceptually and empirically (McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014; McEwan et al., 2018). The present study aimed to adapt the Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport (MATS) into Turkish (MATS-TR) and examine its psychometric properties at both levels of analysis. This study was conducted on a sample of 517 athletes from 42 teams. The participants were 401 men (Mage. = 16.59, SD = 2.9), and 170 women (Mage. = 17.04, SD = 3.8). The study participants completed the Turkish version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport (MATS) as well as a demographic information form. Multilevel confirmatory factor analyses were employed to determine the construct validity. The multilevel reliability of the instrument was determined by calculating the coefficient of composite reliability on both levels of analysis. The findings of this study provided support for the MATS-TR's construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, as well as multilevel reliability. In summary, this study offers empirical support for the use of the MATS-TR as a reliable and valid instrument to assess teamwork behaviors among Turkish athletes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teamwork
• Sports Psychology
• MATS

Kaynakça

1. 1. Beauchamp, M. R., McEwan, D. ve Waldhauser, K. J. (2017). Team building: Conceptual, methodological, and applied considerations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 114-117.
2. 2. Benson, M. (2008). Winning words: Classic quotes from the world of sports. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.
3. 3. Bentler, P. M. ve Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
4. 4. Bollen, K. ve Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314.
5. 5. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259.
6. 6. Bonito, J. A. ve Keyton, J. (2019). Multilevel measurement models for group collective constructs. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 23(1), 1-21.
7. 7. Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, 137-164.
8. 8. Carron, A. V., Martin, L. J. ve Loughead, T. M. (2012). Teamwork and performance. S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology içinde (s. 309–327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. 9. Cohen, A., Doveh, E. ve Eick, U. (2001). Statistical properties of the rWG (J) index of agreement. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 297-310.
10. 10. DeChurch, L. A. ve Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32-53.
11. 11. Eccles, D. (2010). The coordination of labour in sports teams. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(2), 154-170.
12. 12. Eccles, D. W. ve Tran, K. B. (2012). Getting them on the same page: Strategies for enhancing coordination and communication in sports teams. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3(1), 30-40.
13. 13. Eccles, D. W. ve Turner, K. B. T. (2014). Coordination in sports teams. R. Beauchamp & M.A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology içinde (s. 240-255). Routledge.
14. 14. Eys, M. A. ve Brawley, L. R. (2018). Reflections on cohesion research with sport and exercise groups. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(4), e12379.
15. 15. Eys, M., Surya, M. ve Benson, A., J. (2017). Communicating within sport teams. B. Jackson, J. Dimmock ve J. Compton (Eds.), Persuasion and Communication in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity içinde (s. 217-232). New York: Routledge.
16. 16. French, B. F. ve Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 378-402.
17. 17. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
18. 18. Gefen, D., Straub, D. ve Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 1–78.
19. 19. Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J. ve Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72-91.
20. 20. Goodboy, A. K. ve Martin, M. M. (2020). Omega over alpha for reliability estimation of unidimensional communication measures. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(4), 422-439.
21. 21. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43, 115-135.
22. 22. Hsu, H. Y., Kwok, O. M., Lin, J. H. ve Acosta, S. (2015). Detecting misspecified multilevel structural equation models with common fit indices: A Monte Carlo study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(2), 197-215.
23. 23. Hu, L. t. ve 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.
24. 24. Janis, R. A., Burlingame, G. M. ve Olsen, J. A. (2016). Evaluating factor structures of measures in group research: Looking between and within. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 165-180.
25. 25. Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y. (2021). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools).
26. 26. Kim, E. S., Kwok, O. M. ve Yoon, M. (2012). Testing factorial invariance in multilevel data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 19(2), 250-267.
27. 27. Kozlowski, S. W. ve Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
28. 28. Kozlowski, S. W. J. ve Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions içinde (s. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29. 29. Lei, P.-W. ve Shiverdecker, L. K. (2020). Performance of estimators for confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables with missing data. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 27(4), 584-601.
30. 30. LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E. ve Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta‐analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307.
31. 31. López-Gajardo, M. A., Leo, F. M., Jackman, P. C. ve McEwan, D. (2023). Teamwork execution and team resilience: A multistudy examination of reciprocal and longitudinal relationships. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 12(2), 106–122.
32. 32. Lower, L. M., Newman, T. J. ve Anderson-Butcher, D. (2017). Validity and reliability of the teamwork scale for youth. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(6), 716-725.
33. 33. Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I. ve Lüdecke, D. (2020). Methods and algorithms for correlation analysis in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(51), 2306.
34. 34. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. ve Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
35. 35. Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V. ve Burke, S. M. (2009). Team building interventions in sport: A meta-analysis. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 5(2), 3-18.
36. 36. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. ve Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.
37. 37. McDonald, R. P. ve Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
38. 38. McEwan, D. (2020). The effects of perceived teamwork on emergent states and satisfaction with performance among team sport athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(1), 1-15.
39. 39. McEwan, D. ve Beauchamp, M. R. (2014). Teamwork in sport: a theoretical and integrative review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 229-250.
40. 40. McEwan, D. ve Beauchamp, M. R. (2020). Teamwork training in sport: A pilot intervention study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(2), 220-236.
41. 41. McEwan, D., Zumbo, B. D., Eys, M. A. ve Beauchamp, M. R. (2018). The development and psychometric properties of the multidimensional assessment of teamwork in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 40(2), 60-72.
42. 42. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412.
43. 43. Moerbeek, M. (2004). The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 129-149.
44. 44. Moritz, S. E. ve Watson, C. B. (1998). Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 285-298.
45. 45. Muthén, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3), 376-398.
46. 46. Nunnally, J.C. ve Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
47. 47. Pornprasertmanit, S., Lee, J. ve Preacher, K. J. (2014). Ignoring clustering in confirmatory factor analysis: Some consequences for model fit and standardized parameter estimates. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(6), 518-543.
48. 48. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z. ve Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(2), 161-182.
49. 49. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.0.5) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (https://www.R-project.org).
50. 50. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
51. 51. Rousseau, V., Aubé, C. ve Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5), 540-570.
52. 52. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
53. 53. Tamminen, K. A. ve Gaudreau, P. (2014). Coping, social support, and emotion regulation in teams. Beauchamp, R. & Eys, M. (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology içinde (s. 222-239). Routledge.
54. 54. Whitton, S. M. ve Fletcher, R. B. (2014). The group environment questionnaire: A multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. Small Group Research, 45(1), 68-88.
55. 55. Ximénez, C. (2006). A Monte Carlo study of recovery of weak factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 587–614.