Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Siber Zorbalık Üçgeni Ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2021, , 583 - 592, 22.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.823355

Abstract

Amaç: Çevrimiçi iletişimin giderek artan kullanımı günümüz dünyasında çocukların psiko-sosyal durumunu etkileyen siber zorbalık olgusunu daha riskli hale getirmektedir. Siber zorba ve siber kurban olma durumlarını ölçmenin yanı sıra bu ölçek siber seyirci olma durumunu da ele almaktadır. Siber seyirci alt boyutunun ölçülebilmesi hem problemin kapsamlı bir şekilde tanımlanmasına hem de önleyici programlar için yol gösterici olması amacıyla tanımlayıcı, korelasyonel ve metodolojik olarak Siber Zorbalık Üçgeni Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlamak ve psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek amacıyla yapılmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma, tanımlayıcı, korelasyonel ve metodolojik desendedir. Ocak 2018-Eylül 2019 tarihleri arasında 9-17 yaş aralığındaki 1256 çocuk ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aşamasında sosyodemografik form ve Siber Zorbalık Üçgeni Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, Cronbach alfa ve madde toplam puan analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Ölçek 35 madde ve üç alt boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Üç alt ölçeğin toplam varyansın %57'sini açıkladığı bulunmuştur. Açıklayıcı Faktör yükleri birinci alt boyut için 0.41-0.66, ikinci alt boyut için 0.38-0.64 ve üçüncü alt boyut için 0.64-0.73 arasındadır. Ölçeğin toplamı için Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0.87, alt ölçekler için Cronbach alfa değerleri: siber kurban için 0.66, siber zorba için 0.80, siber seyirci için 0.87’dir.
Sonuç: Siber Zorbalık Üçgeni Ölçeği, Türk çocukları örneklemi için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu bulunmuştur.
Bu ölçek, çocukların deneyimlerini üç boyutlu olarak ele alarak kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirebilir. Koruyucu ve önleyici çalışmalar için yön gösterici nitelikte kullanımı kolay bir ölçektir.

Supporting Institution

Yoktur.

Project Number

Yoktur.

Thanks

Çalışmaya katılarak bilimsel bilgi üretime destek veren tüm çocuklara ve onların ailelerine teşekkür ediyoruz.

References

  • 1. Barlett CP. From theory to practice: Cyberbullying theory and its application to intervention. Comput Human Behav. 2017;72:269-275. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.060
  • 2. Barlett CP, Heath JB, Madison CS, DeWitt CC, Kirkpatrick SM. You’re Not Anonymous Online: The Development and Validation of a New Cyberbullying Intervention Curriculum. Psychol Pop Media Cult. Published online 2019. doi:10.1037/ppm0000226
  • 3. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Cultivating youth resilience to prevent bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Child Abus Negl. 2017;73:51-62. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.010
  • 4. Özbey H, Başdaş Ö. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Bullying and Cyber Bullying Scale for Adolescents (BCS-A). Psychiatry Res. 2020;289:112994. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112994
  • 5. Ansary NS. Cyberbullying: Concepts, theories, and correlates informing evidence-based best practices for prevention. Aggress Violent Behav. 2020;50:101343. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2019.101343
  • 6. Çelik S, Atak H, Erguzen A. The Effect of Personality on Cyberbullying among University Students in Turkey. Eurasian J Educ Res. 2012;49:129-150.
  • 7. Patchin J, Hinduja S. Summary of Our Cyberbullying Research (2007-2019). Cyberbullying Research Center. Published June 10, 2019. Accessed May 3, 2020. https://cyberbullying.org/summary-of-our-cyberbullying-research
  • 8. Anderson M, Smith A, Nolan H. A Majority of Teens Have Experienced Some Form of Cyberbullying. 2018; 27 (2):67-66.
  • 9. Li J, Sidibe AM, Shen X, Hesketh T. Incidence, risk factors and psychosomatic symptoms for traditional bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019;107. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104511
  • 10. Uludasdemir D, Kucuk S. Cyber Bullying Experiences of Adolescents and Parental Awareness: Turkish Example. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:84-90. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2018.11.006
  • 11. Gül H, Fırat S, Sertçelik M, Gül A, Gürel Y, Kılıç BG. Cyberbullying among a clinical adolescent sample in Turkey: effects of problematic smartphone use, psychiatric symptoms, and emotion regulation difficulties. Psychiatry Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018;1-11. doi:10.1080/24750573.2018.1472923
  • 12. Vivolo-Kantor AM, Martell BN, Holland KM, Westby R. A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19(4):423-434. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008
  • 13. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Marín-López I. Cyberbullying: A systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicol Educ. 2016;22(1):5-18. doi:10.1016/j.pse.2016.03.002
  • 14. Berne S, Frisén A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, et al. Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2013;18(2):320-334. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.022
  • 15. Bauman S, Yoon J, Iurino C, Hackett L. Experiences of adolescent witnesses to peer victimization: The bystander effect. J Sch Psychol. 2020;80:1-14. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2020.03.002
  • 16. Doane AN, Ehlke S, Kelley ML. Bystanders Against Cyberbullying: a Video Program for College Students. Int J Bullying Prev. Published online 2019. doi:10.1007/s42380-019-00051-5
  • 17. Çetin B, Yaman E, Peker A. Cyber victim and bullying scale: A study of validity and reliability. Comput Educ. 2011;57(4):2261-2271. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.014
  • 18. Gençdoğan B, Cikrikci O. Reliability and Validity Studies of the Turkish Version of the E-Bullying Scale (E-BS) and E-Victimization Scale (E-VS) The Effect of Internet Use on Well-Being View Project Determinants of Life Satisfaction View Project.; 2015;11(1)359-373. 19. Şimşek Ö. Yapisal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel Ilkeler ve LISREL Uygulamalari. 2020;46-98.
  • 20. González-Cabrera JM, León-Mejía A, Machimbarrena JM, Balea A, Calvete E. Psychometric properties of the cyberbullying triangulation questionnaire: A prevalence analysis through seven roles. Scand J Psychol. 2019;60(2):160-168. doi:10.1111/sjop.12518
  • 21. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen S V. Focus on research methods: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Heal. 2007;30(4):459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
  • 22. Terwee C, Bot S, Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. doi:10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2006.03.012
  • 23. DeVellis R. Scale Development : Theory and Applications. 3rd ed. Sage Publisher; 2012.
  • 24. Hayran M, Hayran M. Basic Istatistics for Health Surveys. 1st. edition. Art Ofset Publication; 2011.
  • 25. Johnson B, Christensen L. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 3rd ed. Sage Publication; 2007.
  • 26. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53-60.
  • 27. Çam M, Baysan-Arabacı L. Qualitative and quantitative steps on attitude scale construction. Hemar-G 2010;59-71.
  • 28. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234-243. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x
  • 29. Sencan H. Validity and Reliability in Social and Behavioral Measurements. 1st edition. Seckin Publishing; 2005.
  • 30. Krueger BI, Storkel HL. Children’s Response Bias and Identification of Misarticulated Words. J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2019;63(1):259-273. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00140
  • 31. Paulhus DL. Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In: Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Elsevier; 1991:17-59. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x
Year 2021, , 583 - 592, 22.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.823355

Abstract

Project Number

Yoktur.

References

  • 1. Barlett CP. From theory to practice: Cyberbullying theory and its application to intervention. Comput Human Behav. 2017;72:269-275. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.060
  • 2. Barlett CP, Heath JB, Madison CS, DeWitt CC, Kirkpatrick SM. You’re Not Anonymous Online: The Development and Validation of a New Cyberbullying Intervention Curriculum. Psychol Pop Media Cult. Published online 2019. doi:10.1037/ppm0000226
  • 3. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Cultivating youth resilience to prevent bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Child Abus Negl. 2017;73:51-62. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.010
  • 4. Özbey H, Başdaş Ö. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Bullying and Cyber Bullying Scale for Adolescents (BCS-A). Psychiatry Res. 2020;289:112994. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112994
  • 5. Ansary NS. Cyberbullying: Concepts, theories, and correlates informing evidence-based best practices for prevention. Aggress Violent Behav. 2020;50:101343. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2019.101343
  • 6. Çelik S, Atak H, Erguzen A. The Effect of Personality on Cyberbullying among University Students in Turkey. Eurasian J Educ Res. 2012;49:129-150.
  • 7. Patchin J, Hinduja S. Summary of Our Cyberbullying Research (2007-2019). Cyberbullying Research Center. Published June 10, 2019. Accessed May 3, 2020. https://cyberbullying.org/summary-of-our-cyberbullying-research
  • 8. Anderson M, Smith A, Nolan H. A Majority of Teens Have Experienced Some Form of Cyberbullying. 2018; 27 (2):67-66.
  • 9. Li J, Sidibe AM, Shen X, Hesketh T. Incidence, risk factors and psychosomatic symptoms for traditional bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019;107. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104511
  • 10. Uludasdemir D, Kucuk S. Cyber Bullying Experiences of Adolescents and Parental Awareness: Turkish Example. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:84-90. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2018.11.006
  • 11. Gül H, Fırat S, Sertçelik M, Gül A, Gürel Y, Kılıç BG. Cyberbullying among a clinical adolescent sample in Turkey: effects of problematic smartphone use, psychiatric symptoms, and emotion regulation difficulties. Psychiatry Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018;1-11. doi:10.1080/24750573.2018.1472923
  • 12. Vivolo-Kantor AM, Martell BN, Holland KM, Westby R. A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19(4):423-434. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008
  • 13. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Marín-López I. Cyberbullying: A systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicol Educ. 2016;22(1):5-18. doi:10.1016/j.pse.2016.03.002
  • 14. Berne S, Frisén A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, et al. Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2013;18(2):320-334. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.022
  • 15. Bauman S, Yoon J, Iurino C, Hackett L. Experiences of adolescent witnesses to peer victimization: The bystander effect. J Sch Psychol. 2020;80:1-14. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2020.03.002
  • 16. Doane AN, Ehlke S, Kelley ML. Bystanders Against Cyberbullying: a Video Program for College Students. Int J Bullying Prev. Published online 2019. doi:10.1007/s42380-019-00051-5
  • 17. Çetin B, Yaman E, Peker A. Cyber victim and bullying scale: A study of validity and reliability. Comput Educ. 2011;57(4):2261-2271. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.014
  • 18. Gençdoğan B, Cikrikci O. Reliability and Validity Studies of the Turkish Version of the E-Bullying Scale (E-BS) and E-Victimization Scale (E-VS) The Effect of Internet Use on Well-Being View Project Determinants of Life Satisfaction View Project.; 2015;11(1)359-373. 19. Şimşek Ö. Yapisal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel Ilkeler ve LISREL Uygulamalari. 2020;46-98.
  • 20. González-Cabrera JM, León-Mejía A, Machimbarrena JM, Balea A, Calvete E. Psychometric properties of the cyberbullying triangulation questionnaire: A prevalence analysis through seven roles. Scand J Psychol. 2019;60(2):160-168. doi:10.1111/sjop.12518
  • 21. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen S V. Focus on research methods: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Heal. 2007;30(4):459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
  • 22. Terwee C, Bot S, Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. doi:10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2006.03.012
  • 23. DeVellis R. Scale Development : Theory and Applications. 3rd ed. Sage Publisher; 2012.
  • 24. Hayran M, Hayran M. Basic Istatistics for Health Surveys. 1st. edition. Art Ofset Publication; 2011.
  • 25. Johnson B, Christensen L. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 3rd ed. Sage Publication; 2007.
  • 26. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53-60.
  • 27. Çam M, Baysan-Arabacı L. Qualitative and quantitative steps on attitude scale construction. Hemar-G 2010;59-71.
  • 28. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234-243. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x
  • 29. Sencan H. Validity and Reliability in Social and Behavioral Measurements. 1st edition. Seckin Publishing; 2005.
  • 30. Krueger BI, Storkel HL. Children’s Response Bias and Identification of Misarticulated Words. J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2019;63(1):259-273. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00140
  • 31. Paulhus DL. Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In: Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Elsevier; 1991:17-59. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Emine Zahide Özdemir 0000-0002-4292-8849

Murat Bektaş 0000-0003-3327-8204

Project Number Yoktur.
Publication Date September 22, 2021
Submission Date November 9, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

AMA Özdemir EZ, Bektaş M. Siber Zorbalık Üçgeni Ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Sakarya Tıp Dergisi. September 2021;11(3):583-592. doi:10.31832/smj.823355

30703

SMJ'de yayınlanan makaleler, Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı kapsamında lisanslanır