Serbest Zaman Engelleri ile Serbest Zaman Kolaylaştırıcılarını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Çoklu Göstergeler Çoklu Nedenler (ÇGÇN) Modeliyle İncelenmesi

Öz

İnsanların çeşitli aktivitelere katılamama nedenleri ve katılımlarını kolaylaştıran faktörleri belirlemek için serbest zaman literatüründe pek çok araştırma ve analiz yapılmıştır. Yürütülen bu araştırmalarda ilgili faktörlerin kapsamlı bir biçimde değerlendirilirken bilhassa kişilerin demografik özelliklerini içeren bilgilere varyans analizleriyle yer verildiği görülmektedir, ancak literatürde konunun derinlemesine daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi için farklı analiz yöntemlerine ihtiyaç duyulduğu düşünülmektedir. Dolayısıyla cinsiyet ve medeni durumun hem serbest zaman aktivitelerine katılımı engelleyen faktörler hem de katılımı kolaylaştıran faktörler üzerinde ne derece etkili olduğunu yapısal bir model ile belirlemek bu çalışmanın temel amacını oluşturmuştur. Bartın Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimleri Etik Kurulu Başkanlığı’nın 08.01.2021 tarih ve 2020-SBB-0343 sayılı kararıyla çalışmanın etik kurallara uygun olduğuna karar verilmiştir. Kolayda örneklem yöntemiyle seçilen 332 sedanter kişi üzerinde yürütülen araştırmada, Boş Zaman Engelleri Ölçeği Kısa Formu (BZEÖ-KF) ile Serbest Zaman Kolaylaştırıcıları Ölçeği (SZKÖ) veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Ölçekler arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için oluşturulan araştırma modeli Çoklu Göstergeler Çoklu Nedenler (ÇGÇN) modeliyle test edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda cinsiyet ve medeni durum serbest zaman engelleri üzerinde doğrudan negatif bir etkiye sahipken, serbest zaman kolaylaştırıcıları üzerinde doğrudan pozitif yönde etkiye sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu durum sedanter bireylerin serbest zaman aktivitelerine katılabilme ya da katılamama düzeyleri üzerinde cinsiyet ile medeni durum değişkeninin manidar bir etki yarattığı şeklinde yorumlanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ÇGÇN Model
• Engeller
• Kolaylaştırıcılar
• Rekreasyon
• Serbest Zaman

Investigation of Factors Affecting Leisure Constraints and Leisure Facilitates with Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes Model (MIMIC)

Abstract

Many research and analysis on leisure has examined why people do not participate in leisure activities or what factors facilitate their participation. In these studies, especially the information containing demographic characteristics of the people has been included with variance analysis while the relevant factors are evaluated in a comprehensive way. However, different analysis methods have been needed in the literature for a better understanding of the subject in depth. For this reason, the aim of study is to determine to what extent gender and marital status affected the factors that constrain participation in leisure activities and factors that facilitate participation. With the decision of Bartın University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee dated 08.01.2021 and numbered 2020-SBB-0343, the study was decided to be in compliance with ethical rules. Leisure Constraints Scale-SF (LCS-SF) and Leisure Facilitators Scale (LFS) are used as data collection tools in this study conducted with 332 participants. Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes Model (MIMIC) have been used to test relationship between scales. As a result, gender and marital status have a direct negative effect on LCS-SF. These variables have a direct positive effect on LFS. This situation may be interpreted as socio-demographic characteristics have a significant effect on sedentary individuals' ability to participate in leisure activities or not.

Keywords

• Constraints
• Facilitators
• Leisure
• MIMIC Model
• Recreation

Kaynakça

1. Alexandris, K. & Carroll, B. (1997). Demographic differences in the perception of constrains on recreational sports participation: results from a study in Greece. Leisure Studies, 16, 107-125.
2. Alexandris, K. (2013). Segmenting recreational tennis players according to their involvement level: a psychographic profile based on constraints and motivation. Managing Leisure, 18(3), 179–193.
3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structuralmodels. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
4. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. In Los Angeles: BMDP Statistic Software.
5. Bolla, P., Dawson, D. & Harrington, M. (1991). The leisure experience of women in Ontario. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 16, 322-348.
6. Bollen, K. A. & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective (Vol.467). Hoboken, New J: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J. & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
8. Can, A. (2014). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. (3.Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademisi.

9. Chambers, D. A. (1986). The constraints of work and domestic schedules on women's leisure. Leisure Studies, 5, 309-325.
10. Chick, G., Dong, E. (2005). Cultural constraints on leisure. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 169–183). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
11. Crawford, D. W. & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9, 119-127.
12. Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L. & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.
13. Duncan, T.E. & Duncan, S. C. (2009). The ABC’s of LGM: An introductory guide to latent variable growth curve modeling. Social and Personality Pschology Compass, 3(6), 979-991.
14. Finck, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
15. Firestone, J. & Shelton, B. (1994). A comparison of women's and men's leisure time: Subtle effects of the double day. Leisure Sciences, 16, 45-60.
16. Gana, K., & Broc, G. (2019). Structural equation modeling with lavaan. In London, UK: ISTE Ltd (1st Edition). ISTE Ltd.
17. Godbey, G., Crawford, D. W. & Shen, X. S. (2010). Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory after two decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 111–134.
18. Green, E., Hebron, S. & Woodward, D. (1987). Leisure and gender: A study of Sheffield women's leisure experience. London, England: The Sports Council and Economic and Social Research Council.
19. Green, E., Hebron, S. & Woodward, D. (1990). Women's leisure: What leisure? London: Macmillan.
20. Gürbüz, B., Çimen, Z. & Aydın, İ. (2018). Serbest zaman ilgilenim ölçeği: Türkçe formu geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(4), 256-265.
21. Gürbüz, B., Öncü, E. & Emir, E. (2019). The Turkish adaptation of leisure facilitator scale: A validity and reliability study. Physical Education of Students, 23(2), 64-69.
22. Gürbüz, B., Öncü, E. & Emir, E. (2020). Boş zaman engelleri ölçeği: Kısa formunun yapı geçerliğinin test edilmesi. Spor ve Performans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 120-131.
23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (Seventh edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prectice Hall.
24. Harrington, M. A. (1991). Time after work: Constraints on the leisure of working women. Loisir et Société, 14(1), 115-132.
25. Harrington, M., Dawson, D. & Bolla, P. (1992). Objective and subjective constraints on women's enjoyment of leisure. Loisir et Société, 15, 203-221.
26. Hawkins, B. A., Peng, J., Hsieh, C. M. & Eklund, S. J. (1999). Leisure constraints: A replication and extension of construct development. Leisure Sciences, 21(3), 179- 192.
27. Henderson, K. A. (1991). The contribution of feminism to an understanding of leisure constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 363-377.
28. Henderson, K. A. (1994a). Broadening an understanding of women, gender, and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 1-7.
29. Henderson, K. A., Bialeschki, M.D., Shaw, S., Freysinger, V. (1989). A leisure of one's own: A feminist perspective on women's leisure. State College, PA: Venture.
30. Henderson, K.A. (1994b). Special issue on women, gender, and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1).
31. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
32. Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
33. Hubbard, J. & Mannell, R. C. (2001). Testing competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences, 23,145–163.
34. Jackson, E. L. (1988). Leisure constraints: A survey of past research. Leisure Sciences, 10(3), 203–215.
35. Jackson, E. L. (1990). Variations in the desire to begin a leisure activity: Evidence of antecedent constraints? Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 55-70.
36. Jackson, E. L. (1993). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: Results from alternative analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 129–149.
37. Jackson, Edgar L., Henderson, K.A. (1995). Gender‐based analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17(1), 31–51.
38. Joreskog, K. G. & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351a), 631-639.
39. Kim, B., Heo, J., Chun, S. & Lee, Y. (2011). Construction and initial validation of the leisure facilitator scale. Leisure/Loisir, 35(4), 395-401.
40. Koçak, F., Gürbüz, B., Doğaner, S., Özbek, O. (2018). Serbest zaman kolaylaştırıcıları, serbest zaman engelleri ve serbest zaman ilgilenimi arasındaki ilişki: Yapılsa eşitlik modeli çalışması. 16. Uluslararası Spor Bilimleri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, Özet, 943-944.
41. Morris, E., van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T. Wallen, K. E. & Absher, J. (2017). Accounting for gender in a study of the motivation-involvement relationship. Leisure Sciences, 1–14.
42. Park, S., Kim, J., Nam, S. & Kwon, J. (2017). Leisure constraints, leisure constraints negotiation and recreation specialization for water-based tourism participants in Busan. Asian Social Science, 13(10), 159-167.
43. Philipp, S. F. (1997) Race, gender, and leisure benefits. Leisure Sciences, 19(3), 191-207. Proitsi, P., Hamilton, G., Tsolaki, M., Lupton, M., Daniilidou, M., Hollingworth, P., & Powell, J. F. (2011). A Multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD). Neurobiology of Aging, 32(3), 434–442.
44. Raymore, L. A. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 37-51. Sarol, H. (2017). Bireylerin fiziksel aktiviteye katılımını engelleyen ve kolaylaştıran faktörlerin belirlenmesi, Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 4354-4364.
45. Searle, M. S. & Jackson, E. L. (1985). Socioeconomic variations in perceived barriers to recreation participation among would-be participants. Leisure Sciences, 7, 227-249.
46. Shaw, S. M. (1985). Gender and leisure: Inequality in the distribution of leisure time. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 266-282.
47. Shaw, S. M. (1988). Gender differences in the definition and perception of household labor. Family Relations, 37,333-331
48. Shaw, S. M. (1994). Gender, leisure, and constraints: Toward a framework for the analysis of women's leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 8-22.
49. Shaw, S. M., Bonen, A., McCabe, J.F. (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 286-300.
50. Solmaz, S. & Çolakoğlu, T. (2019). Örgüt kültür tipleri ve özdeşleşme: İş tatminin aracılık etkisi. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(4), 105-119.
51. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893–898.
52. Swinton, A. T., Freman, P. A., Zabriskie, R. B. & Fields, P. J. (2008). Nonresident fathers’ family leisure patterns during parenting time with their children. Fathering, 6(3), 205-225.
53. Şen, S. (2020). Mplus ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Uygulamaları. (1.Basım). Nobel Akademik Yayın Evi, Ankara.
54. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (Fifth edition). Newyork: Pearson Education, Inc.
55. Teo, T. (2010). Measuring the effect of gender on computer attitudes among pre‐service teachers. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(4), 227–239.
56. Wimbush, E. & Talbot, M. (Eds.). (1988). Relative freedoms. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.