Sporcu Ruh Sağlığı Sürekliliği-Kısa Formu: Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Psikometrik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Sporcu Ruh Sağlığı Sürekliliği-Kısa Formu’nun (SRSS-KF) Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma, ölçeğin Türkçeye çevrilmesi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik olmak üzere üç aşamada yürütülmüştür. 254 (M_yaş=21.96, SS=4.49) üniversiteli sporcu ile gerçekleştirilen faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin uyum iyiliği indekslerinin yeterli olduğu görülmüştür. Benzer ölçek geçerliği çalışması amacıyla dahil edilen Ruh Sağlığı Sürekliliği Kısa Formu, SRSS-KF ile orta düzeyde pozitif yönde ilişkilidir. Madde toplam korelasyonlarının orta ve güçlü düzeyde, Spearman-Brown iki yarım test korelasyonun oldukça yüksek olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ölçeğin geneli (α=.922), Sporda Öznel İyi Oluş (α=.833), Sporda Sosyal İyi Oluş (α=.840) ve Sporda Psikolojik İyi Oluş (α=.857) alt ölçekleri için Cronbach’s alpha iç tutarlık katsayıları oldukça yüksektir. İki hafta aralıklı olarak uygulanan test-tekrar test sonucunda ölçeğin zamana karşı tutarlı olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak, Sporda Öznel İyi Oluş, Sporda Psikolojik İyi Oluş, Sporda Sosyal İyi Oluş olmak üzere üç alt boyutlu ve 14 maddeli SRSS-KF geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spor
• İyi oluş
• Ölçek uyarlama
• ruh sağlığı

Sport Mental Health Continuum-Short Form: Turkish Adaptation and Psychometric Properties

Öz

The aim of the present study is to adapt the Sport Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (Sport MHC-SF) into Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties. The research was carried out in three stages: the translation of the scale into Turkish, validity and reliability. As a result of the factor analysis performed with 254 (M_age=21.96, SD=4.49) student-athletes, the goodness of fit indices were appropriate. The Mental Health Continuum Short Form, which was included for the convergent validity study, was moderately positively correlated with Sport MHC-SF. The item-total correlations were moderate and strong, and the Spearman-Brown split-half correlation result was fairly high. Sport MHC-SF (α=.922), Sport Subjective Well-Being (α=.833), Sport Social Well Being (α=.857), and Sport Psychological Well-Being (α=.857) subscales demonstrated fairly high internal consistency. Two-weeks interval test-retest reliability showed that the scale was consistent over time. Consequently, Sport MHC-SF is a valid and reliable measurement tool, consisting of three subscales, Sport Subjective Well-Being, Sport Psychological Well-Being, and Sport Social Well-Being, and 14 items.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sport
• Well-being
• Scale adaptation
• mental health

Kaynakça

1. 1. Akın, A. (2008). The scales of psychological well-being: a study of validity and reliability. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 741-750. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ837765
2. 2. Allen, M. (Ed.). (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781483381411
3. 3. Allen, M. J., ve Yen, W. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Waveland Press.
4. 4. Bertollo, M., Forzini, F., Biondi, S., Di Liborio, M., Vaccaro, M. G., Georgiadis, E., ve Conti, C. (2021). How does a sport psychological intervention help professional cyclists to cope with their mental health during the COVID-19 lockdown?. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.607152
5. 5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem.
6. 6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. 7. Comrey, A. L. ve Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. 2. bs. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. 8. Demirci, I., ve Akın, A. (2015). Ruh Sağlığı Sürekliliği Kısa Formu’nun geçerliği ve güvenirliği. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(1), 49-64.

9. 9. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. (2004). Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice: summary report. https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/en/promoting_mhh.pdf
10. 10. Fonteyn, M. E., Kuipers, B. ve Grobe, S. J. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3(4), 430-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300403
11. 11. Foster, B. J., ve Chow, G. M. (2019). Development of the Sport Mental Health Continuum—Short Form (Sport MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13(4), 593-608. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2017-0057
12. 12. Hardesty, D. M. ve Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
13. 13. Houltberg, B. J., Wang, K. T., Qi, W., ve Nelson, C. S. (2018). Self-narrative profiles of elite athletes and comparisons on psychological well-being. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 89(3), 354-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2018.1481919
14. 14. 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
15. 15. Keldal, G. (2015). Warwick-Edinburgh mental iyi oluş ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness ve Well-Being, 3(1), 103-115.
16. 16. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 121-140.
17. 17. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., ve Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
18. 18. Keyes, C. L., ve Shapiro, A. D. (2019). Chapter Twelve. Social Well-Being in the United States: A Descriptive Epidemiology (pp. 350-372). University of Chicago Press.
19. 19. Keyes, C. L., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., ve Van Rooy, S. (2008). Evaluation of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) in setswana‐speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology ve Psychotherapy, 15(3), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.572
20. 20. Koo, T. K., ve Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
21. 21. Lundqvist, C. (2011). Well-being in competitive sports—The feel-good factor? A review of conceptual considerations of well-being. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(2), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2011.584067
22. 22. Lyons-Thomas, J. (2014). Using think aloud protocols in the validity investigation of an assessment of complex thinking [Doktora tezi, British Columbia Üniversitesi].
23. 23. Malinauskas, D. R., ve Malinauskiene, V. (2018). The mediation effect of perceived social support and perceived stress on the relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological wellbeing in male athletes. Journal of Human Kinetics, 65, 291. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2018-0017
24. 24. 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
25. 25. Meral, B. F. (2014). Kişisel iyi oluş indeksi-yetişkin Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 2(2), 119-131.
26. 26. Ryan, R. M., ve Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
27. 27. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069.
28. 28. Ryff, C. D., ve Singer, B. (1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65(1), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000289026
29. 29. 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. Erişim adresi: http://www.mpr-online.de/
30. 30. Schober, P., Boer, C., ve Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia ve Analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768. Doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
31. 31. Stenling, A., Lindwall, M., ve Hassmén, P. (2015). Changes in perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in young elite athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(1), 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spy0000027
32. 32. Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., ve Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0
33. 33. Tabachnick, B.G., ve Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
34. 34. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6): 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
35. 35. Telef, B. B. (2013). Psikolojik iyi oluş ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(28-3), 374-384. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hunefd/issue/7791/101929