ÖZÜR DİLEME MOTİVASYONLARI ÖLÇEĞİ: BİR ÖLÇEK UYARLAMA ÇALIŞMASI

Year 2023, , 65 - 73, 20.10.2023

Kutay Özdemir , Ahmet Sait Özkul

https://doi.org/10.57120/yalvac.1306842

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Mu (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Özür Dileme Motivasyonları Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlamasını yaparak, ölçeğin güvenirlik ve geçerliliğini test etmektir. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Ankara ilinde savunma sanayi sektöründe faaliyet gösteren bir firmanın 181 yöneticisi oluşturmaktadır. Ölçeğin güvenirlik ve geçerliliğini sınamak için güvenirlik katsayıları hesaplanmış, açımlayıcı faktör analizi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ek olarak ölçeğin birleşim ve ayrışım geçerliliği de sınanmıştır. Yapılan açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda, toplam varyansın %79,5’inin açıklandığı ve 12 maddenin 4 boyut altında toplandığı saptanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde ise 4 boyutlu modelin iyi seviyede uyum gösterdiği doğrulanmıştır (χ2/df=2,45, CFI=0,96, NFI=0,91, TLI=0,92, GFI=0,91, AGFI=0,86, RMSEA=0,07). Ölçeğin boyutlarına ait güvenirlik katsayıları 0,83 ile 0,91 arasında değişmektedir. Ayrıca ölçeğe ait değerlerin birleşim ve ayrışım geçerliliğinin tüm koşullarını sağladığı tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda, Özür Dileme Motivasyonları Ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uygun, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Özür Dileme Motivasyonları, Ölçek Uyarlama, Güvenirlik, Geçerlilik

APOLOGY MOTIVES SCALE: A SCALE ADAPTATION STUDY

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the scale's reliability and validity by converting Mu's (2016) Apology Motives Scale into Turkish. The research sample comprises of 181 managers from a company operates in defense industry sector in Ankara. In order to test the reliability and validity of the scale, reliability coefficients were calculated, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were implemented. The scale's convergent and discriminant validity were also assessed. The exploratory factor analysis revealed that 79.5% of the total variance could be explained, and 12 items were classified into four dimensions. It has been verified that the 4-dimensional model fits well in the confirmatory factor analysis (χ2/df=2,45, CFI=0.96, NFI=0.91, TLI=0.92, GFI=0.91, AGFI=0.86, RMSEA=0.07). The dimensions of the scale have reliability coefficients ranging from 0.83 to 0.91. Furthermore, it was discovered that the scale's values satisfied all of the convergent and discriminant validity criteria. According to the findings, the Apology Motives Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool fit for Turkish culture.

Keywords

Apology Motives, Scale Adaptation, Reliability, Validity

References

• [1] Ren, H. ve Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 105-126.
• [2] Call, J., Judge, P. G. ve de Waal, F. B. (1996). Influence of kinship and spatial density on reconciliation and grooming in rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology, 39(1), 35-45.
• [3] Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J. ve Zaheer, A. (2009). Reparing relationships within and between organizations: building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 68-84.
• [4] Fehr, R. ve Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 37-50.
• [5] Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R. ve Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2), 165-187.
• [6] https://www.nisanyansozluk.com/kelime/%C3%B6z%C3%BCr. (2023, 9 Şubat).
• [7] https://sozluk.gov.tr/. (2023, 22 Şubat).
• [8] Dankoff, R. ve Kelly, J. (1984). Compendium of the Turkic dialects, by Mahmud al Kashghari, sources of oriental languages and literatures 7, Turkish sources VII. Harvard University Printing Office.
• [9] Tanıklarıyla Tarama Sözlüğü III. (1967). TDK Yayınları.
• [10] Ata, A. (1997). Kısasü'l-Enbiya (Peygamber Kıssaları) I (Giriş-Metin-Tıpkıbasım). TDK Yayınları.
• [11] Goffman, E. (1971). The territories of the self. Relations in public, Basic Books.
• [12] Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. S. Blum-Kulka, J. House ve G. Kasper (Ed.) Cross- cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, (p. 155-173).
• [13] Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194-213.
• [14] Bies, R. J., Barclay, L. J., Tripp, T. M. ve Aquino, K. (2016). A systems perspective on forgiveness in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 245-318.
• [15] Lewicki, R. J. ve Bunker, B. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. R. M. Kramer ve T. R. Tyler (Ed.) Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research içinde (p. 114-139). Sage.
• [16] Exline, J. J., Deshea, L. ve Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(4), 479-504.
• [17] Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J. ve Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 31-64.
• [18] DeShon, R. P. ve Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096-1127.
• [19] Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113-1127.
• [20] Perugini, M. ve Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal‐directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98.
• [21] Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
• [22] Huang, C. F. ve Hsueh, S. L. (2007). A study on the relationship between intellectual capital and business performance in the engineering consulting industry: A path analysis. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 13(4), 265-271.
• [23] Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
• [24] Palanski, M. E. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level perspective and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 275-287.
• [25] Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J. ve Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894-914.
• [26] Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M. ve Hornsey, M. J. (2015). Apologies demanded yet devalued: Normative dilution in the age of apology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 133-136.
• [27] Mu, X. (2016). Why did I apologize? Apology motives and offender perceptions in the aftermath of workplace conflicts [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. University of Waterloo.
• [28] Deniz, K. Z. (2007). Psikolojik ölçme aracı uyarlama. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 1-16.
• [29] Bayık, M. E. ve Gürbüz, S. (2016). Ölçek uyarlamada metodoloji sorunu: Yönetim ve örgüt alanında uyarlanan ölçekler üzerinden bir araştırma, İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 3(1), 1-20.
• [30] Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2). 179-185.
• [31] Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
• [32] Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity, Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
• [33] Ayre, C. ve Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original Methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86.
• [34] Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5. Baskı). Allyn & Bacon.
• [35] Ledesma, D. R. ve Mora, P. V. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practica Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(2).
• [36] O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32(3), 396-402.
• [37] Streiner, D. L. (1994). Sample-size formulae for parameter estimation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(1), 275-284.
• [38] Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151.
• [39] 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.
• [40] 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.
• [41] Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
• [42] Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
• [43] 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.
• [44] Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.
• [45] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8. Baskı). Cengage.
• [46] Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Yayıncılık.