Psychometric Evaluation of the Turkish Version of the Transactive Memory Systems Scale in Sport

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Transactive Memory Systems Scale in Sport. The scale comprises 13 items measured on a 7-point Likert scale and reflects 3 subdimensions of Transactive Memory Systems: specialization, reliability, and coordination. The study was conducted on a sample of 233 athletes (x̄=22.65±.61), including 108 females (x̄=22.2±5.05) and 125 males (x̄=23.1±6.03) from different sports, ages, and levels. Data was collected at the training fields of the sports clubs and a cross-sectional research design was employed. In the analysis phase of the data gathered, first and second order confirmatory factor analysis was performed for construct validity. Convergent validity of the scale was evaluated by analyzing Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) coefficients. Divergent validity was assessed through Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios. The discrimination of the scale items was evaluated via corrected item-total correlations. For the scale’s reliability, Cronbach Alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients were computed. Results revealed that the goodness of fit indexes obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis indicates acceptable model-data fit (χ2/df=1.70; CFI=.956; TLI=.944; RMSEA=.065; SRMR=.054). AVE, CR, and HTMT scores provided adequate support for the convergent and divergent validity. Reliability coefficients vary between .77-. 90. The Turkish version of the scale has supported the three first order and one second order factor structure likewise the original form. Two items were removed from the measurement model as they did not meet the criteria for factor loadings. Results have provided empirical support that the Turkish version of the Transactive Memory Systems Scale in Sport is a valid and reliable measurement tool and can be used in the field of Sport and Exercise Psychology.

Keywords

• Transactive Memory
• Sports
• Team
• Team Cognition

Sporda Geçişken Bellek Sistemi Ölçeği Türkçe Versiyonunun Psikometrik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Sporda Geçişken Bellek Sistemi Ölçeği’nin (Transactive Memory Systems Scale in Sport) Türkçe versiyonunun psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Sporda Geçişken Bellek Sistemi Ölçeği uzmanlaşma, güvenirlik ve koordinasyon olmak üzere 3 alt boyuttan ve 13 maddeden oluşmakta ve yedili Likert tipinde puanlanmaktadır. Kesitsel tarama modelinin kullanıldığı bu çalışma, farklı spor dalları, yaş ve lig düzeylerinden 108 kadın (x̄=22.2±5.05) ve 125 erkek (x̄=23.1±6.03) sporcunun yer aldığı toplam 233 kişilik (x̄=22.6±5.61) bir örneklem üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler, spor kulüplerine ait çalışma alanlarında toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği, birinci ve ikinci düzey doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Yakınsak geçerlik, Ortalama Açıklanan Varyans (AVE) ve Birleşik Güvenirlik katsayısı (CR) kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Ayrışım geçerliği, Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) oranları incelenerek belirlenmiştir. Ölçek maddelerinin ayırt ediciliğini belirleyebilmek amacıyla düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonlarından yararlanılmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirliği Cronbach Alpha ve McDonalds’s Omega katsayıları kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda elde edilen uyum iyiliği değerleri, kabul edilebilir düzeyde model-veri uyumunu göstermektedir (χ2/df=1.70; CFI=.956; TLI=.944; RMSEA=.065; SRMR=.054). AVE, CR ve HTMT değerleri doğrultusunda ölçeğin yakınsak geçerlik ve ayrışım geçerliğine ilişkin yeterli kanıtlar elde edilmiştir. Ölçekten elde edilen güvenirlik katsayıları .77 ve .90 aralığındadır. Ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonunun orijinal formda yer alan birinci düzeyde üç, ikinci düzeyde tek faktörlü yapısını desteklediği görülmüştür. Ölçeğe ilişkin iki madde, faktör yüklerini karşılamadıkları için ölçüm modelinden çıkarılmıştır. Sporda Geçişken Bellek Sistemi Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonunun Türk sporculardan oluşan örneklem üzerinde geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olarak spor ve egzersiz psikolojisi alanında kullanılabilmesine ilişkin yeterli ampirik kanıtın sağlandığı ifade edilebilir.

Keywords

• Geçişken Bellek
• Spor
• Takım
• Takım Bilişi

References

1. Argote, L., ve Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
2. Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education.
3. Bourbousson, J., Poizat, G., Saury, J., ve Seve, C. (2010). Team coordination in basketball: Description of the cognitive connections among teammates. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(2), 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413201003664657
4. Bourbousson, J., R’Kiouak, M., ve Eccles, D. W. (2015). The dynamics of team coordination: A social network analysis as a window to shared awareness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 742-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1001977
5. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. Lonner, W. J., ve Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research içinde (ss. 137-164). SAGE Publications.
6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (21. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
8. Comrey, A. L., ve Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press.

9. Cooke, N. J., Cohen, M. C., Fazio, W. C., Inderberg, L. H., Johnson, C. J., Lematta, G. J., Peel, M., ve Teo, A. (2024). From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition. Human Factors, 66(6), 1669-1680. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231162449
10. Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., ve Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009
11. Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., ve Winner, J. L. (2007). Team cognition. F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, S. T. Dumais, S., Lewandowsky ve T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition içinde (ss. 235-258). Wiley.
12. dos Santos, P. M., ve Cirillo, M. A. (2023). Construction of the average variance extracted index for construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 52(4), 1639-1650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2021.1888122
13. Eccles, D. W., ve Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26(4), 542-560. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.4.542
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2011.649229
15. Edwards, A. A., Joyner, K. J., ve Schatschneider, C. (2021). A simulation study on the performance of different reliability estimation methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(6), 1089-1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164421994184
16. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications.
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. French, B. F., ve Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(3), 378-402. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3
19. Frith, C. D., ve Frith, U. (2007). Social cognition in humans. Current Biology, 17(16), R724-R732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.068
20. 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), 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
21. Gershgoren, L. (2012). The development and validation of the shared mental models in team sports questionnaire [Doctoral Dissertation, The Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
22. Hair, J., Joseph, F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., ve Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
23. He, J., Butler, B. S., ve King, W. R. (2007). Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240210
24. 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(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
26. Innami, I. (1992). Determinants of the quality of group decisions and the effect of the consensual conflict resolution. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1992(1), 217-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1992.17515606
27. Isoard-Gautheur, S., Balk, Y., Lefebvre du Grosriez, S., de Jonge, J., ve Sarrazin, P. (2024). What can sports psychology learn from work and organizational psychology? Benefits and pitfalls of applying theoretical models from one context to another. New Ideas in Psychology, 72, 101057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101057
28. Jackson, M., ve Moreland, R. L. (2009). Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40(5), 508-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409340703
29. Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., ve Rosseel, Y. (2021). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. Vienna, Austria: R Package version (0.5-6) [R package] (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools).
30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.659623
31. Klimoski, R., ve Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(94)90021-3
32. Kozlowski, S. W. J. ve Bell, B. S. (2012). Work Groups and Teams in Organizations. I. Weiner, N.W. Schmitt ve S. Highhouse (Eds). Handbook of Psychology, (2nd ed.) içinde. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212017
33. Leo, F. M., Filho, E., López-Gajardo, M. A., García-Calvo, T., ve González-Ponce, I. (2023). The relationship among intra-group communication, transactive memory systems, collective efficacy and team performance: A structural equation model analysis with elite footballers. European Journal of Sport Science, 23(4), 599-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2022.2049373
34. Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., García-Calvo, T., Sánchez-Oliva, D., ve Filho, E. (2019). The relationship among cohesion, transactive memory systems, and collective efficacy in professional soccer teams: A multilevel structural equation analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 23(1), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000097
35. Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Pulido, J. J., ve García-Calvo, T. (2018). Adaptation and validation of the Transactive Memory System Scale in Sport (TMSS-S). International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(6), 1015-1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954118767509
36. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
37. Liao, J., Jimmieson, N. L., O’Brien, A. T., ve Restubog, S. L. D. (2012). Developing Transactive Memory Systems: Theoretical contributions from a social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management, 37(2), 204-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112443976
38. Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., ve Klock, E. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17-46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
39. McDonald, R. P., ve Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.932423
41. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
42. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., ve Krishnan, R. (2002). Training People to Work in Groups. R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, ve J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and Research on Small Groups içinde (ss. 37-60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47144-2_3
43. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., ve Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. SAGE Publications.
44. Park, H. S. (2003). The effect of shared cognitions on member satisfaction with group processes and group performance: Politeness and efficiency in group interaction [Doctoral Dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
45. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.1.0) [Computer Software). Vienna, Austria. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
46. Reimer, T., Park, E. S., ve Hinsz, V. B. (2006). Shared and coordinated cognition in competitive and dynamic task environments: An information‐processing perspective for team sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(4), 376-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671804
47. Ren, Y., ve Argote, L. (2011). Transactive Memory Systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 189-229. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590300
48. Revelle, W. (2024). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.4.12, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
49. Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., ve Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge–based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27751276
50. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1 - 36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
51. Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Rico, R., Gil, F., ve San Martín, R. (2006). Transactive memory in decision-making teams: implications for team effectiveness. Psicothema, 18(4), 750-756.
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. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., ve Zechmeister, J. S. (2000). Research methods in psychology. McGraw-Hill.
54. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. Mullen, B., ve Goethals, G. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behaviour içinde (ss. 185-208). Springer.
56. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., ve Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923-929. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923
57. Weick, K. E., ve Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393372
58. Williamson, K., ve Cox, R. (2013). Distributed cognition in sports teams: Explaining successful and expert performance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(6), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.779215
59. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.