BibTex RIS Cite

DEVELOPING MARITAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDIES

Year 2008, Volume: 3 Issue: 29, 79 - 93, 23.04.2008

Abstract

The purpose of this study was that Marital Self-efficacy Scale was developed and examined its validity and reliability in order to determine married people’ belief about personal and social
efficacy in marital reationship. Data were collected from 436 married people who graduate from high school and/or higher level education. MSS is a 5-point Likert scale. This scale consists of 33 items, none of which is reversed. First, the construct validity of the MSS tested by the principle component analysis of descriptive factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In
descriptive factor analysis, a two factor structure was found. The first factor explained 44.95 % of the total variance. It was called “Partner Relationship” because it was consisted of partner relationship items. The second factor explained 9.50 % of the total variance. It was called “Relationship by Close Enviroment” because it was consisted of relationships which were with
people out of family. The factors of the scale explained of 54.45 % for total variance. At the same time, confirmatory factor analysis was applied. The confirmatory factor analysis showed
a two factor solution. It explained relations among items better than a one factor solution. In the last stage, the relations among factors were postulated to grow out of self-efficacy upper dimension and second order factor analysis was applied. In
conclusion, fit index of model which was represented by 33 items, two subscales and an upper dimension was found quite high ( 2 x =2068.66, p<.000, GFI=.99, AGFI=.99, CFI=1.00
ve RMSEA=.09). In order to test concurrent validity, correlation between DAS and MSS which is calculated by Pearson Momentum Correlation Coefficients was r= .66 p<.01. In order to
determine the reliability of the scale, Cronbach Alpha Coefficients of the whole scale was .96. The findings indicated that MSS was a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to understand structure and quality of marriage relationship.

References

  • Arias, H.; Lyons, C. M. ve Street, A. E. (1997). Individual and marital consequences of victimization: Moderating effcts of relationship efficacy and spouse support. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 193-210.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Company.
  • Bandura, A.Pastorelli, C. Barbaranelli, C. ve Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269
  • Bradbury, T. N. (1989). Cognition, emotion and interaction in distressed and nondistressed couples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
  • Binici-Azizoğlu, S. ve Hovardaoğlu, S. (1996). Evlilik için karşılaştırma düzeyi ölçeğinin (EKDÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Der- gisi, 11 (38), 66-77.
  • Çelik, M. (2006). Evlilik doyum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora tezi. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Davis, F. W. ve Yates, B. T. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expentancies as determinants of performance deficits and depressive affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 23-35.
  • Dostal, C. ve Langhinrichsen- Rohling, J. (1997).
  • Relationship-specific cognitions and
  • family-of-origin divorce and abuse. Journal of
  • Divorce and Remarriage. 27, 101-120.
  • Doherty, W. J. (1981a). Cognitive procesess in intimate conflict: I. Extending attribution theory. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(1), 3-13.
  • Doherty, W. J. (1981b). Cognitive procesess in intimate conflict: II. Efficacy and learned helplessness. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 9 (2), 35-44.
  • Fincham, E.D. ve Bradbury, T.N. (1989). Cognition and marital dysfunction: The role of efficacy expectations, Presented at the 23rd Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington, DC. İnternet’ten 27- 10-2006’da elde edilmiştir. http://marriage.psych. ucla.edu/researchintruments.asp. Fışıloğlu, H. ve Demir, A. (2000). Applicability of the dyadic adjustment scale for measurement scale for measurement of marital quality with Turkish couples. European Journal of Psychological Assesment, 16 (3), 214-218.
  • Holahan, C.K. ve Holahan, C.J.(1987). Life stres, hassles and self-efficacy in aging: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 574-592.
  • Jerusalem, M. ve Mittag, W. (1995). Self- efficacy in stressful life transitions. A. Bandura (Ed.), Self–efficacy in changing societies (pp. 177-201). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kavanagh, D. (1992). Self-efficacy and depression. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 177-194). Washington, DC.: Hemisphere.
  • Kabakçı, E. Tuğrul, C. ve Öztan, N. (1993). Birtchnell eş değerlendirme ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 8 (29), 31-37.
  • Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge, New York.
  • Lopez, F. G. ve Lent, R.W. (1991). Efficacy- based predictors of relationship adjustment and persistence amaong college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 223-229.
  • Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Maddux, J. E.ve Meier, L. J. (1995). Self- efficacy and depression. J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self- efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 143-169). New York: Plenum.
  • O’Leary, A. (1992). Self-efficacy and Health: Behavioral and stress-physiological mediation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 229-245.
  • Rabois, D. ve Haaga, D. A. F. (2003). The influence of cogntive coping and mood on smokers’ self-efficacy and temptation. Addictive- Behaviors, 28, 561-573.
  • Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New Scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.
  • Shurts, W. M. (2004).The relationships among marital messages

Evlilikte Yetkinlik Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi:Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2008, Volume: 3 Issue: 29, 79 - 93, 23.04.2008

Abstract

Bu çalışmayla, evlilik ilişkilerinde gerekli kişisel ve sosyal yeterlikler konusunda kişinin inançlarını belirlemeye yönelik Evlilikte Yetkinlik Ölçeği (EYÖ)’nin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması tanıtılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması
lise ve üstü eğitim düzeyine sahip 436 ( kadın:248, erkek: 188 ) evli birey üzerinde yapılmıştır. Evlilikte Yetkinlik Ölçeği 33 maddeden oluşan 5’li likert tipi bir ölçektir. EYÖ’nin yapı geçerliğini sınamak için betimleyici faktör analizi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Yapılan betimleyici faktör analizi
sonucunda ölçeğin toplam varyansın % 54.45’ini açıklayan iki faktörden oluştuğu görülmüştür. Birinci faktör toplam varyansın % 44.95’ini açıklamakta olup, eşle ilişkileri yansıtan ifadelerden oluşmaktadır ve “Eşle İlişki” olarak adlandırılmıştır. İkinci faktör toplam varyansın % 9.50’sini açıklamakta olup, aile dışındaki kişilerle ilişkileri yansıtan ifadelerden oluşmaktadır ve “Yakın Çevreyle İlişki” olarak adlandırılmıştır. Yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi de, iki faktörlü çözümün maddeler arasındaki ilişkileri daha iyi açıkladığını göstermiştir. Bir sonraki aşamada ise,
faktörler arasındaki ilişkinin yetkinlik üst boyutundan kaynaklandığı varsayılarak ikincil düzey faktör analizi yapılmış sonuçta, 33 madde, 2 alt boyut ve bir üst boyut ile temsil edilen modelin uyum endeksleri oldukça yüksek bulunmuştur ( 2 x =2068.66, p<.000, GFI=.99, AGFI=.99, CFI=1.00 ve RMSEA=.09). Benzer ölçekler geçerliğine bakılan çalışmada, EYÖ ölçeği ile Çift Uyum Ölçeği (Fışıloğlu ve Demir, 2000) arasındaki korelasyon r=.66 p< .01 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin güvenirliğini için Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı .96
olarak bulunmuştur. Bulgular bu ölçeğin evlilik ilişkisinin yapısını ve niteliğini anlama ve yordama açısından geçerli ve güvenilir olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

References

  • Arias, H.; Lyons, C. M. ve Street, A. E. (1997). Individual and marital consequences of victimization: Moderating effcts of relationship efficacy and spouse support. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 193-210.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Company.
  • Bandura, A.Pastorelli, C. Barbaranelli, C. ve Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269
  • Bradbury, T. N. (1989). Cognition, emotion and interaction in distressed and nondistressed couples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
  • Binici-Azizoğlu, S. ve Hovardaoğlu, S. (1996). Evlilik için karşılaştırma düzeyi ölçeğinin (EKDÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Der- gisi, 11 (38), 66-77.
  • Çelik, M. (2006). Evlilik doyum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora tezi. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Davis, F. W. ve Yates, B. T. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expentancies as determinants of performance deficits and depressive affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 23-35.
  • Dostal, C. ve Langhinrichsen- Rohling, J. (1997).
  • Relationship-specific cognitions and
  • family-of-origin divorce and abuse. Journal of
  • Divorce and Remarriage. 27, 101-120.
  • Doherty, W. J. (1981a). Cognitive procesess in intimate conflict: I. Extending attribution theory. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(1), 3-13.
  • Doherty, W. J. (1981b). Cognitive procesess in intimate conflict: II. Efficacy and learned helplessness. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 9 (2), 35-44.
  • Fincham, E.D. ve Bradbury, T.N. (1989). Cognition and marital dysfunction: The role of efficacy expectations, Presented at the 23rd Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington, DC. İnternet’ten 27- 10-2006’da elde edilmiştir. http://marriage.psych. ucla.edu/researchintruments.asp. Fışıloğlu, H. ve Demir, A. (2000). Applicability of the dyadic adjustment scale for measurement scale for measurement of marital quality with Turkish couples. European Journal of Psychological Assesment, 16 (3), 214-218.
  • Holahan, C.K. ve Holahan, C.J.(1987). Life stres, hassles and self-efficacy in aging: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 574-592.
  • Jerusalem, M. ve Mittag, W. (1995). Self- efficacy in stressful life transitions. A. Bandura (Ed.), Self–efficacy in changing societies (pp. 177-201). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kavanagh, D. (1992). Self-efficacy and depression. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 177-194). Washington, DC.: Hemisphere.
  • Kabakçı, E. Tuğrul, C. ve Öztan, N. (1993). Birtchnell eş değerlendirme ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 8 (29), 31-37.
  • Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge, New York.
  • Lopez, F. G. ve Lent, R.W. (1991). Efficacy- based predictors of relationship adjustment and persistence amaong college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 223-229.
  • Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Maddux, J. E.ve Meier, L. J. (1995). Self- efficacy and depression. J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self- efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 143-169). New York: Plenum.
  • O’Leary, A. (1992). Self-efficacy and Health: Behavioral and stress-physiological mediation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 229-245.
  • Rabois, D. ve Haaga, D. A. F. (2003). The influence of cogntive coping and mood on smokers’ self-efficacy and temptation. Addictive- Behaviors, 28, 561-573.
  • Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New Scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.
  • Shurts, W. M. (2004).The relationships among marital messages
There are 28 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Hüdayar Cihan Güngör This is me

Yaşar Özbay This is me

Publication Date April 23, 2008
Published in Issue Year 2008 Volume: 3 Issue: 29

Cite

APA Cihan Güngör, H., & Özbay, Y. (2008). DEVELOPING MARITAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDIES. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3(29), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.17066/pdrd.34009

!! From 30 November 2023, English language proofreading will be required for accepted articles to ensure language quality.