Evliliğe Yüklenen Anlam Ölçeğinin (EYAÖ) Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2018, Volume: 8 Issue: 50, 235 - 259, 01.09.2018

Nilüfer Özabacı , Serdar Körük , Ahmet Kara

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı bireylerin evlilik kavramına yükledikleri anlamları belirlemek amacıyla Evliliğe Yüklenen Anlam Ölçeğinin (EYAÖ) geliştirilmesidir. İlk aşamada evli, bekâr, boşanmış ve nişanlı/sözlü olan toplam 110 bireye “Sizin için evlilik ne anlam ifade ediyor?” sorusu yöneltilmiş ve yazılı olarak elde edilen veriler ilgili alan yazın ile incelenerek 70 maddelik taslak ölçek oluşturulmuştur. Taslak ölçek 195 birey (82 bekâr, 89 evli, 4 boşanmış ve 20 nişanlı/sözlü) üzerinde uygulanarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. EYAÖ’ne uygulanan açımlayıcı faktör analizi ölçeğin dokuz faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğunu göstermiştir ve 31 maddelik, öz değeri 1.11, açıkladığı toplam varyans %63 ve en düşük faktör varyansı %3.6 olan nihai ölçeğe ulaşılmıştır. Faktörler; işlevsellik, bağlılık, yakınlık, tamamlayıcılık, engellenmişlik, çaba, işbirliği, risk ve uyum beklentisi olarak isimlendirilmiştir. EYAÖ’nin ölçüt geçerliği Yakın İlişkilerde Yaşantılar Envanteri II (YİYE-II) ve İlişki Doyum Ölçeği (İDÖ) ile arasındaki korelasyonlara bakılarak incelenmiştir. EYAÖ’nin güvenirliği Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı hesaplanarak incelenmiştir. 

Keywords

Evlilik, Anlam, Ölçek geliştirme, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

References

• Bacanlı, H. (2001). Mate preferences. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2(15), 7- 16.
• Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. K. A. Bollen ve J. S. Long (Ed.). Testing structural equation models içinde (s.136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Cancian, F. M. (1987). Love in America: Gender and self-development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Canel, A. (2012). Aile yaşam becerileri [Family life-skills]. İstanbul: Nakış Yayınevi.
• Carroll, J. S., Willoughby, B., Badger, S., Nelson, L. J., Barry, C. M., & Madsen, S. (2007). So close yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(3), 219-247.
• Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social forces, 74(2), 609-632.
• Cott, N. F. (2002). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Curun, F. (2001). The effects of sexism and sex role orientation on romantic relationship satisfaction. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Fowers, B. (2003). Conceptualizing and measuring healthy marriages and positive relationships. In S. Jekielek, K. Moore, J. Carrano, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring “healthy marriages” for empirical research and evaluation studies: Recommendation memos from experts in the field.” Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
• Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH marital satisfaction scale: A brief research and clinical tool. Journal of Family psychology, 7(2), 176-185.
• Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350-365.
• Hayward, M., & Zhang, Z. (2006). Gender, the marital life course, and cardiovascular disease in late midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 639-657.
• Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 93-98.
• Hovardaoğlu, S., & Binici-Azizoğlu, S. (1996). Marital comparison level index: Validity and reliability. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 11(38), 66-76.
• Gazioğlu, İ., E., A. (2006). Investigations of young adults’ views about marriage and family life. Marmara University Ataturk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 23, 107-123.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2. bs.). NY: The Guillford Press.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: The Guildford Press.
• Koç, M., Sezer, A., Balçın, M., Turhan, H., Polat, Ü., & Bölükbaş, O. (2007). University students’ attributes about marriage concept. Bayburt Üniversity Education Faculty Journal, 2(2), 110-123.
• Koçyigit, M., & Kalkan, M. (2016). Social interest and future-time orientation in romantic relationships. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 6(2), 53-57.
• McGinnis, S. L. (2003). Cohabiting, dating, and perceived costs of marriage: A model of marriage entry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 105-116.
• Mohammadi, B., & Soleymani, A. (2017). Early maladaptive schemas and marital satisfaction as predictors of marital commitment. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 16-22.
• Nazlı, S. (2014). Aile danışmanlığı [Family counseling] (11. ed.). Ankara: Anı.
• Nock, S. R. (2005). Marriage as a public issue. Future of Children, 15, 13–32.
• Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141- 151.
• Özabacı, N., & Erkan, Z. (2014). Aile danışmanlığı. Kuram ve uygulamalara genel bir bakış [Family counseling. An overview of theory and practice]. Ankara: Pegem.
• Rauch, J. (2004). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. New York: Time Books.
• Park, S. S., & Rosén, L. A. (2013). The marital scales: Measurement of intent, attitudes, and aspects regarding marital relationships. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 54(4), 295-312.
• Peters, E. (2018). The influence of choice feminism on women’s and men’s attitudes towards name changing at marriage: An analysis of online comments on UK social media. Names, 1-10.
• Raymo, J. M., Park, H., Xie, Y., & Yeung, W. J. J. (2015). Marriage and family in East Asia: Continuity and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 471-492.
• Saxton. L. (1982). Marriage. The nature of marriage, the individual, marriage, and the family. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
• Schumacher, S., & McMillan, J. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry. Boston: Pearson.
• Schumm, W. R., Anderson, S. A., Benigas, J. E., Cutchen, M. B. M., Griffin, C. L., Morris, J. E., & Race, G. S. (1985). Criterion-related validity of the Kansas marital satisfaction scale. Psychological Reports, 56(3), 719-722.
• Selçuk, E., Günaydın, G., Sümer, N., & Uysal, A. (2005). A new scale developed to measure adult attachment dimensions: Experiences in close relationships-revised (ECR-R) - Psychometric evaluation in a Turkish sample. Turkish Psychological Articles, 8(16), 1-11.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications. Turkish Psychological Articles, 3(6), 49-74.
• Synder, D.K. (1997). Marital satisfaction inventory, revised (MSI-R) manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
• Ümmet, D. (2017). A metaphoric examination of marriage perception of higher educated married people. Kalem International Journal of Education and Human Sciences, 7(1), 205-235.
• Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2007). Her marriage after the revolutions. Sociological Forum, 22, 104–111.
• Yalçın, İ.,& Hamamcı, Z. (2012). Evlilik öncesi psikolojik danışma [Pre-marriage counseling]. Ankara: Anı Publishing. Zhou, R. D., Chiu, M. Y., & Chui, W. Y. (2017). Development and validation of the marital metaphor questionnaire (MMQ‐10) for urban Chinese women. Journal of marital and family therapy, 43(1), 65-81.