İçsel Konuşma Ölçeği Türkçe Dil Uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğrenenlerin bilişsel ve metabilişsel süreçlerinde önemli bir rol oynayan içsel konuşmayı ölçmek amacıyla Alderson-Day vd. (2018) tarafından geliştirilen İçsel Konuşma ölçeğinin “Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire- Revised (VISQ-R)” Türkçeye uyarlanmasıdır. Çalışma, Uluslararası Test Komisyonu (ITC) yönergeleri temel alınarak 9 aşamada (çeviri, uzman görüşü, dilsel eşdeğerlik vb.) gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın ana saha uygulaması için ölçek eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim gören 323 öğretmen adayı ile yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile, güvenirliği ise Cronbach Alfa (α) ve McDonald's Omega (ω) iç tutarlılık katsayıları ile incelenmiştir. DFA sonuçları, ölçeğin orijinal formundaki beş faktörlü ve 25 maddelik nihai yapısının (Diyalojik, Değerlendirici/Eleştirel, Diğer Kişiler, Sıkıştırılmış, Pozitif/Düzenleyici) Türk kültüründe doğrulandığını, modelin kabul edilebilir uyum değerlerine (χ²/df = 2.87, RMSEA = .076) sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçeğin genel iç tutarlılık katsayıları α = .836 ve ω = .839 olarak hesaplanmış olup, alt boyutlara ait katsayılar .691 ile .865 (α: .691-.863; ω: .695-.865) arasında değişmektedir. Sonuç olarak, İçsel Konuşma Ölçeği Türkçe Formu'nun eğitim araştırmalarında eğitimciler üzerinde uygulanılabilecek geçerli, güvenilir ve pedagojik bir ölçme aracı olduğu tespit edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İçsel konuşma
• Ölçek uyarlama
• Geçerlik ve güvenirlik
• Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi
• Öğretmen adayları

Turkish Adaptation of The Inner Speech Scale: Validity and Reliability Analysis

Öz

This study aimed to adapt the Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire-Revised (VISQ-R), developed by Alderson-Day et al. (2018) to measure learners' cognitive and metacognitive inner speech, into Turkish. Following International Test Commission (ITC) guidelines, the study was conducted in nine phases (translation, expert view, linguistic equivalence, etc.). The main field implementation included 323 preservice teachers in a faculty of education. Construct validity was examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and reliability was assessed via Cronbach's alpha (α) and McDonald's Omega (ω) internal consistency coefficients. CFA results supported the five-factor, 25-item structure (Dialogic, Evaluative/Critical, Other people, Condensed, and Positive/Regulatory) in Turkish culture, showing acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.87, RMSEA = .076). Overall internal consistency was α = .836 and ω = .839, with subscales ranging from .691 to .865 (α: .691-.863; ω: .695-.865). In conclusion, the Turkish VISQ-R was proven to be a valid, reliable, and pedagogical measurement tool that can be administered to educators in educational research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inner speech
• Scale adaptation
• Validity and reliability
• Confirmation factor analysis
• preservice teachers

Destekleyen Kurum

This research was not funded in whole or in part by any external funding, public grants, institutional funding, or any form of project assistance from the private or non-profit sector.

Etik Beyan

This study complied with all the rules specified in the "Guidelines for Scientific Research and Publication Ethics in Higher Education Institutions". None of the actions listed under the second section of the guidelines, titled "Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics," were carried out.

Kaynakça

1. Alderson-Day, B., & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 931-965. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000021
2. Alderson-Day, B., Mitrengaa, K., Wilkinson, S., McCarthy-Jones, S., & Fernyhough, C., (2018). The varieties of inner speech questionnaire - Revised (VISQ-R): Replicating and refining links between inner speech and psychopathology. Consciousness and Cognition 65,48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.001
3. Arafat, S. M. Y. (2016). Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of instruments: Step-wise. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.33140/ijp/01/01/00001
4. Baharum, H., Ismail, A., Awang, Z., McKenna, L., Ibrahim, R., Mohamed, Z., & Hassan, N. H. (2023). Validating an instrument for measuring newly graduated nurses' adaptation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042860
5. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
6. Brauer, K., Ranger, J., & Ziegler, M. (2023). Confirmatory factor analyses in psychological test adaptation and development: A nontechnical discussion of the WLSMV estimator. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 4(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000034
7. Brinthaupt, T. M., Hein, M. B., & Kramer, T. E. (2009). The self-talk scale: Development, factor analysis, and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484498
8. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Adaptation of assessment scales in cross-national research: Issues, guidelines, and caveats. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 5(1), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000042

9. Can, A. (2016). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma süreçlerinde nicel veri analizi (4.Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
10. Chella, A., & Pipitone, A. (2020). A cognitive architecture for inner speech. Cognitive Systems Research, 59, 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.09.010
11. Chen, W. J. (2012). Immediate effects of positive self-talk on stress and speech performance [Yüksek lisans tezi / Master's thesis, San José State University]. San José State University ScholarWorks.
12. Dana, A., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2025). Application of inner Speech in the motor learning context: A validation study. Health Nexus, 3(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.hn.3.4.4
13. Dana A, Ghorbani S, M. & Brinthaupt T. (2024). Adaptation and validation of the learning-specific inner speech scale (LISS) to the motor learning context. Phys. Act. Child, 1(1), 58-64. https://doi.org/10.61186/pach.2024.465761.1015
14. de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2018). Private and inner speech in L2 learning: The impact of Vygotskyan sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 152–164). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747-10
15. Ekizoğlu, Ö., Acet, M. & Toros, C. (2024). The effect of professional volleyball players’ mental endurance, imagination, and internal speech levels on the way they cope with stress. Research in Sports Science (Online), 14(2), 99 - 106. https://doi.org/10.5152/rss.2024.23024
16. Flanagan, R. M., & Symonds, J. E. (2022). Children's self-talk in naturalistic classroom settings in middle childhood: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 35, 100432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100432
17. Fossa, P. (Ed.). (2022). Inner speech, culture & education. Springer.
18. Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. R. M., & Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
19. Heggestad, E. D., Scheaf, D. J., Banks, G. C., Monroe Hausfeld, M., Tonidandel, S., & Williams, E. B. (2019). Scale adaptation in organizational science research: A review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2596-2627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319850280
20. Hidayat, Y., Yudiana, Y., Hambali, B., Sultoni, K., Ustun, U. D., & Singnoy, C. (2023). The effect of the combined self-talk and mental imagery program on the badminton motor skills and self-confidence of youth beginner student-athletes. BMC Psychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01073-x
21. Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465-497). Academic Press.
22. Hu, L. T., & 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
23. International Test Commission. (2005). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (Version 1.0). https://www.intestcom.org
24. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
25. Kompa, N. A., & Mueller, J. L. (2024). Inner speech as a cognitive tool-or what is the point of talking to oneself? Philosophical Psychology, 37(8), 1971–1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2112164
26. Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1999). The influence of self-talk on the performance of skilled female tennis players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11(2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209908404204
27. Langland‐Hassan, P. (2014). Inner speech and metacognition: In search of a connection. Mind & Language, 29(5), 511-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12064
28. Latinjak, A. T., Viladrich, C., Alcaraz, S., & Torregrosa, M. (2016). Spanish adaptation and validation of the Automatic Self-Talk Questionnaire for Sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(4), 402-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1055287
29. McCarthy-Jones, S., & Fernyhough, C. (2011). The varieties of inner speech: Links between quality of inner speech and psychopathological variables in a sample of young adults. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1586-1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.005
30. Morin, A. (2005). Possible links between self-awareness and inner speech: Theoretical background, underlying mechanisms, and empirical evidence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(4-5), 115-134.
31. Morin, A., Duhnych, C., & Racy, F. (2018). Self‐reported inner speech use in university students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 376-382. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3404
32. Orhan, S. (2024). Futbolcularda sürekli sportif kendine güven ve içsel konuşmanın zihinsel dayanıklılık ile ilişkisi ve zihinsel dayanıklılığa etkisi: Kesitsel araştırma. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi , 16(1), 81 - 88. https://doi.org/10.5336/sportsci.2023-97970
33. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.
34. Pan, Y., Kim, H., Huang, Y., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2025). Promoting students’ metacognition and self-regulatory efficacy through metacognitive scaffolding in mobile technology-enhanced interactive classrooms: The moderating role of inner speech. Education and Information Technologies, 30(8), 10811-10836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13284-9
35. Racy F., Morin, A. & Duhnych, C. (2020). Using a thought listing procedure to construct the general inner speech questionnaire: An ecological approach. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 33(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2019.1633572
36. Racy, F., Morin, A., & Hagerty, J. (2024). Concurrent validity and reliability of representative inner speech questionnaires. Psychological Reports, 127(2), 994-1002.
37. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221109109
38. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
39. Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2023). Unrestricted factor analysis: A powerful alternative to confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(1), 86-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00888-1
40. Thomaes, S., Tjaarda, I. C., Brummelman, E., & Sedikides, C. (2020). Effort self-talk benefits the mathematics performance of children with negative competence beliefs. Child Development, 91(6), 2211–2220. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13347
41. Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9
42. Uttl, B., Morin, A., & Hamper, B. (2011). Are inner speech self-report questionnaires reliable and valid? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1719-1723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.332
43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
44. Werani, A. (2018). Inner speech and its impact on teaching and learning. In The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 136-151). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747-9
45. Xiang, X., Brinthaupt, T. M., Sun, S., & Ren, X. (2019). The learning-specific inner speech scale (LISS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000544
46. Zervas, Y., Stavrou, N. A., & Psychountaki, M. (2007). Development and validation of the Self-Talk Questionnaire (S-TQ) for Sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(2), 142-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200601185156
47. Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Chroni, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Papaioannou, A. (2009). Automatic self-talk questionnaire for sports (ASTQS): Development and preliminary validation of a measure identifying the structure of athletes’ self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 23(2), 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.23.2.233