Adaptation of The Bystander Intervention Scale in Cyber Bullying Into Turkish: Validity And Reliability Study

Bu makale için 30 Nisan 2025 tarihinde bir düzeltme yayımlandı. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aicusbed/article/1689618

Öz

In this study, we aimed to adapt the cyberbullying bystander intervention scale (CBIS) to Turkish culture and conduct validity and reliability analysis. CBIS consists of 6 subscales and 40 items: online passive stranger, online victim's advocate, online bully's supporter, face-to-face passive stranger, face-to-face victim's advocate and face-to-face supporter of the bully. 265 students (180 girls, 85 boys) aged between 14 and 15 in Erzurum city center participated in the research. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed for the construct validity of the scale, which has six dimensions. The fit index values of the scale confirmed the six-dimensional structure (x2/sd= 3,12; CFI = .90; IFI = .90; GFI= .90; SRMR = .063; RMSEA = .046). Cronbach Alpha values of the scale vary between .80 for the whole scale and .67 and .87 for the sub-dimensions. The McDonald (ω) reliability coefficient of CBIS is .81 for the entire scale and between .68 and .87 for its sub-dimensions. The scale is evaluated according to its sub-dimensions. A high score from the scale indicates cyber bystander intervention regarding that sub-dimension. As a result, the scale provided evidential information to measure the cyber bullying bystander intervention levels of adolescents in Turkey

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyber bullying
• bystander intervention
• scale adaptation

SİBER ZORBALIĞA SEYİRCİ MÜDAHALE ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇE’YE UYARLANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Bu makale için 30 Nisan 2025 tarihinde bir düzeltme yayımlandı. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aicusbed/article/1689618

Öz

Bu çalışma da siber zorbalığa seyirci müdahale ölçeğini (SZSMÖ) Türk kültürüne uyarlanması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. SZSMÖ, çevrimiçi pasif yabancı, çevrimiçi mağdurun savunucusu, çevrimiçi zorbanın destekçisi, yüz yüze pasif yabancı, yüz yüze mağdurun savunucusu ve yüz yüze zorbanın destekçisi olmak üzere 6 alt boyut ve 40 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmaya Erzurum il merkezinde yaşları 14 ile 15 arasında değişen 265 (180 Kız, 85 Erkek) öğrenci katılmıştır. Altı boyutu olan ölçeğin yapı geçerliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin uyum indeks değerleri (x2/sd= 3,12; CFI = .90; IFI = .90; GFI= .90; SRMR = .063; RMSEA = .046) altı boyutlu yapıyı doğrulamıştır. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha değerleri ölçeğim tümü için .80, alt boyutların ise .67 ile .87 arasında değişmektedir. SZSMÖ’nin McDonald (ω) güvenirlik katsayısı ölçeğin tümü için .81, alt boyutlarının ise .68 ile .87 arasındadır. Ölçek alt boyutlarına değerlendirilmektedir. Ölçekten alınan yüksek puan o alt boyuta ilişkin siber zorbalığa seyirci müdahalesini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin Türkiye’deki ergenlerin siber zorbalık seyirci müdahale düzeylerini ölçecek kanıtlayıcı bilgiler sunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber Zorbalık
• Seyirci Müdahalesi
• Ölçek Uyarlama

Kaynakça

1. Aksaray, P.D.S. (2011). Siber zorbalık. Journal of the Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 20(2), 405-432.
2. Arıcak, O. T., Tanrıkulu, T., & Kınay, H. (2012). Siber mağduriyet ölçeği’nin ilk psikometrik bulguları. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11, 1-6.
3. Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., & Memmedov, C. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(3), 253-261.
4. Barlett, C.P., & Helmstetter, K.M. (2018). Longitudinal relations between early online disinhibition and anonymity perceptions on later cyberbullying perpetration: A theoretical test on youth. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(4), 561-571.
5. Barlett, C.P., & Wright, M.F. (2018). Longitudinal relations among cyber, physical, and relational bullying and victimization: Comparing majority and minority ethnic youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 49-59.
6. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824.
7. Bauman, S. (2014). Cyber-bullying and suicide. Youth Suicide and Bullying. Goldblım, P., Espelage, D.L., Chu, J., Bongar, B. (Eds.) Challenges and Strategies for Prevention and Intervention içinde (77-92), New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.2190/8YQM-B04H-PG4D-BLLH

9. Betts, L.R., Spenser, K.A., & Gardner, S. E. (2017). Adolescents’ involvement in cyber bullying and perceptions of school: The importance of perceived peer acceptance for female adolescents. Sex roles, 77(7), 471-481.
10. Chu, X. (2020). The bystander effect in cyberbullying. A study based on network groups [Doctoral dissertation]. Central China Normal University.
11. Dennehy, R., Meaney, S., Cronin, M., & Arensman, E. (2020). The psychosocial impacts of cybervictimisation and barriers to seeking social support: Young People’s Perspectives. Children And Youth Services Review, 111, 104872.
12. Elçi, A., & Seçkin, Z. (2016). Cyberbullying awareness for mitigating consequences in higher education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516646095
13. Ergün Başak, B., Baştürk, E. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin siber zorbalık deneyimlerinin olweus’un akran zorbalığı modeli çerçevesinde incelenmesi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(1), 240-278. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.520847
14. Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1993). Exploratory factor analysis: A users’ guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 84-94.
15. Gini, G., Card, N.A., & Pozzoli, T. (2018). A meta‐analysis of the differential relations of traditional and cyber‐victimization with internalizing problems. Aggressive Behavior, 44(2), 185-198.
16. Hsieh, Y.P. (2020). Parental psychological control and adolescent cyberbullying victimisation and perpetration: The mediating roles of avoidance motivation and revenge motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 30(3), 212-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185385.2020.1776153
17. 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.
18. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
19. Jenkins, L.N., & Nickerson, A.B. (2017). Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 281-290.
20. Juvonen, J., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?-Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505.
21. Karakaya Özyer, K. (2021). Ölçek geliştirme ve güvenirlik analizleri: Jamovi uygulaması. Türk Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(5), 1330-1384. https://doi.org/10.30622/tarr.1004560
22. Karasar, N. (2023). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. 38. Baskı, Nobel Yayınevi.
23. Kline, R.B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (50. Edition). Guilford Publications. Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13-S20.
24. Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth, Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0035618
25. Kurt-Demirbaş, N., & Öztemel, K. (2019). Zorbalıkta Seyirci Müdahale Ölçeği’nin (ZSMÖ) Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 9 (54), 965-985.
26. Livazović, G., & Ham, E. (2019). Cyberbullying and emotional distress in adolescents: The importance of family, peers and school. Heliyon, 5(6), e01992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01992
27. Macaulay, P.J., Betts, L.R., Stiller, J., & Kellezi, B. (2022). Bystander responses to cyberbullying: The role of perceived severity, publicity, anonymity, type of cyberbullying, and victim response. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107238
28. Mesch, G.S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387-393.
29. Midgett, A., Doumas, D.M., & Johnston, A.D. (2017). Establishing school counselors as leaders in bullying curriculum delivery: Evaluation of a brief, school-wide bystander intervention. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18778781
30. Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors among middle and high school students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3), 362-374.
31. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228.
32. Nickerson, A.B., Feeley, T.H., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2017). Applying mass communication theory to bystander intervention in bullying. Adolescent Research Review, 2(1), 37-48.
33. Özdamar, K. (2013). Paket programlar ile istatiksel veri analizi: MINITAB 16-IBM SPSS 21. Nisan.
34. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Opening universities in a digital era. New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(1), 22-24.
35. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research. In Cyberbullying prevention and response (pp. 13-35). Routledge.
36. Peker, A., & Kasikci, F. (2022). Do positivity and sensitivity to cyber-bullying decrease cyber-bullying? Acta Educationis Generalis, 12(2), 90-111. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2022-0016
37. Peker, A., & Nebioglu-Yildiz, M. (2021). Mediating role of self-control in the relationship between aggressiveness and cyber bullying. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.5455/PBS.20210114051215
38. Pepler, D., Mishna, F., Doucet, J., & Lameiro, M. (2021). Witnesses in cyberbullying: Roles and dilemmas. Children & Schools, 43(1), 45-53.
39. Pişkin, M. (2010). Ankara’daki ilköğretim öğrencileri arasında akran zorbalığının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(156), 175-189.
40. Reid Chassiakos, Y.L., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M.A., Cross, C., Hill, D., ... & Swanson, W.S. (2016). Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2593
41. Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Counteracting bullying in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(5), 405-411.
42. Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007
43. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 22(1), 1-15.
44. Sarmiento, A., Herrera-López, M., & Zych, I. (2019). Is cyberbullying a group process? Online and offline bystanders of cyberbullying act as defenders, reinforcers and outsiders. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 328-334.
45. Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology And Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.
46. Sobba, K.N., Paez, R.A., & Ten Bensel, T. (2017). Perceptions of cyberbullying: An assessment of perceived severity among college students. TechTrends, 61(6), 570-579.
47. TÜİK (2021). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, 2021 yılı hane halkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-KullanimArastirmasi-2021-37437, Adresinden 10 Mart 2023 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
48. TÜİK (2022). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, 2022 yılı hane halkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-KullanimArastirmasi-2022, Adresinden 10 Mart 2023 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
49. Uysal, İ., Duman, G., Yazıcı, E., & Şahin, M. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının siber zorbalık duyarlılıkları ve siber zorbalık duyarlılık ölçeğinin bazı psikometrik özellikleri. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 191-210.
50. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1349-1371.