Collective Orientation Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The individual attitudes and behaviors of team members influence team performance. Studies indicate that team members' collective orientation positively affect interdependent teamwork. This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the Collective Orientation Scale. 359 university students (18-26 years old) participated in the study. Validity of the scale was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Also, convergent and divergent validity were tested. Furthermore, relationships with other scales (INDCOL, Cooperation, Preference for Solitude, Student Attitudes toward Group Environments) were examined. Corrected item-total correlations were analyzed to assess item analysis. Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to examine reliability of the scale. The results provide various evidence that the Collective Orientation Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords

• collective orientation
• teamwork
• reliability
• validity
• adaptation

Kolektif Çalışma Yönelimi Ölçeği Türkçe Formu: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Takım üyelerinin bireysel tutum ve davranışları takım performansını etkiler. Araştırmalar, takım üyelerinin kolektif çalışma yöneliminin takım çalışmasını olumlu etkilediğine işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Kolektif Çalışma Yönelimi Ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya yaşları 18 ile 26 arasında değişen 359 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Yapı geçerliği sınaması için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca, ölçeğin yakınsak ve ıraksak geçerliği sınanmıştır. Bununla beraber, ölçeğin INDCOL (yatay bireycilik boyutu), İş birliği, Tek Başına Olmayı Tercih Etme ve Grup Çalışmasına Yönelik Tutum (ürün ve sürecin kalitesi boyutu) ölçekleriyle ilişkisi korelasyon analizi ile incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, ölçeğin düzeltilmiş madde toplam puan korelasyonları incelenerek madde analizi yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirliği Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanarak sınanmıştır. Sonuçlar, Kolektif Çalışma Yönelimi ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğuna dair çeşitli kanıtlar ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kolektif çalışma yönelimi
• takım çalışması
• güvenirlik
• geçerlik
• uyarlama

Kaynakça

1. Alavi, S. B. ve McCormick, J. (2004). Theoretical And Measurement Issues for Studies of Collective Orientation in Team Contexts, Small Group Research, 35(2), s.111-127.
2. Antoni, C. ve Hertel, G. (2009). Team Processes, Their Antecedents and Consequences: Implications for Different Types of Teamwork, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, s.253–266.
3. Aust, F., Heinemann, L., Holtz, M., Hagemann, V. ve Peifer, C. (2023). Team Flow Among Firefighters: Associations with Collective Orientation, Teamwork-Related Stressors, and Resources, International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 8(2), s.339-363.
4. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J. ve Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating Member Ability And Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), s.377–391.
5. Basbay, P. ve Kosova, J. E. (2022). Bireycilik-toplulukçuluk ve Bilgi Paylaşımı İlişkisinde Kolektif Çalışma Yönelimi ile İş Arkadaşlarına Güvenin Seri Aracılık Rolü, Psikoloji Çalışmaları- Studies in Psychology, 42(3), s.551–584.
6. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-Level Composition Variables as Predictors of Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, s.595–615.
7. Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual Differences in Preference for Solitude, Journal of Research in Personality, 29(1), s.85-108.
8. Campbell, D. T., ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), s.81-105.

9. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. ve Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations Between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups, Personnel Psychology, 46(4), s.823-847.
10. Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ve Bowers, C. (2011). Team Development And Functioning. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial And Organizational Psychology, Vol 1 Building And Developing The Organization (pp. 597–650). American Psychological Association.
11. Chen, X. P., Xie, X. ve Chang, S. (2011). Cooperative and Competitive Orientation among Chinese People: Scale Development and Validation. Management and Organization Review, (7), s.353–379.
12. Driskell, J. E. ve Salas, E. (1992). Collective Behavior And Team Performance, Human Factors, 34(3), s.277-288.
13. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E. ve Driskell, T. (2018). Foundations of Teamwork and Collaboration, American Psychologist, 73(4), s.334–348.
14. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E. ve Hughes, S. (2010). Collective Orientation and Team Performance: Development of an İndividual Differences Measure, Human Factors, 52(2), s.316–328.
15. Dyer, J.L. (1984). Team Research and Team Training: A State-Of-The-Art Review, Human Factors Review, 26, s.285-323.
16. Earley, P.C. (1989) Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, s. 565-581.
17. Eby, L. T. ve Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic Orientation in Teams: An Individual and Group‐Level Analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), s.275-295.
18. Erpay, T. ve Atik, G. (2019). Tek Başına Olma Türleri Ölçeği: Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Başkent University Journal of Education, 6(2), s.192-201.
19. Fornell, C., ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, s. 382-388.
20. Hackman JR. 1987. The Design of Work Teams. In (Ed.) JW Lorsch, Handbook of Organizational Behavior, pp. 315–342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21. Hagemann, V. (2017). Development of a German-Language Questionnaire to Measure Collective Orientation as An Individual Attitude, Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76(3), s.91–105.
22. Hu, J. ve Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of Team Potency and Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Goal and Process Clarity and Servant Leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), s.851–862.
23. Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, s.1–55.
24. Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams Embedded in Organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54(2), s.129–139.
25. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. ve Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process- Output Models to IMOI Models, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, s.517-543.
26. Kirkman, B. L. ve Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The Impact of Cultural Values on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Self-Managing Work Teams: The Mediating Role of Employee Resistance, Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), s.557-569.
27. Kozlowski, S. W. J.ve Klein, K. J. (2000). A Multilevel Approach to Theory And Research in Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, And Emergent Processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, And Methods In Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, And New Directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey- Bass/Wiley.
28. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Watola, D. J., Jensen, J. M., Kim, B. H. ve Botero, I. C. (2009). Developing Adaptive Teams: A Theory of Dynamic Team Leadership. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin ve C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives And Approaches (pp. 113–155). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
29. Kouros C, Abrami PC (2006) How Do Students Really Feel About Working In Small Groups? The Role Of Student Attitudes And Behaviours In Cooperative Classroom Settings. Paper presented 2006 The American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, April, 2006, San Fransisco, USA.
30. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts; Selected Papers On Group Dynamics. New York: Harper.
31. Martens, R. ve Peterson, J. A. (1971). Group Cohesiveness as A Determinant of Success and Member Satisfaction in Team Performance, International Review of Sport Sociology, 6(1), s.49-61.
32. McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society (Vol. 92051). Simon and Schuster.
33. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction And Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, And Society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
35. Meydan, C.H. ve Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Amos Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
36. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H. ve Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The Relationship Between Work-Team Personality Composition And The Job Performance of Teams, Group & Organization Management, 24(1), s.28-45.
37. Ozoilo, M. C., Mefoh, P. C., Okechi, B. C. ve Nwankwo, B. C. (2020). Effects of Social Loafing, Collective Orientation, and Self-Efficacy on Adolescents Cognitive Task Performance, Nigerian Journal of Psychological Research, 16(1), s.38-43.
38. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism‐Collectivism and Personality, Journal of Personality, 69(6), s.907-924.
39. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J. ve Rosen, M. A. (2008). On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments, Human Factors, 50(3), s.540-547.
40. Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., ve Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward An Understanding Of Team Performance And Training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their Training And Performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex Publishing.
41. Salas, E., Goodwin, G., F., ve Burke, C., S., (2009). Team Effectiveness In Complex Organizations.Cross- Disciplinary Perspectives And Approaches. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
42. Salas, E., Sims, D. E. ve Burke, C. S. (2005). Is There A “Big Five” in Teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, S.555–599.
43. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S. ve Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement, Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), s.240–275.
44. Stewart, G. L. ve Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team Structure and Performance: Assessing The Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and The Moderating Role Of Task Type, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), s.135-148.
45. Stevens, M. J. ve Campion, M. A. (1994). The Knowledge, Skill, And Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management, Journal of Management, 20(2), s.503-530.
46. Şimşek Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş, Temel İlkeler ve LİSREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks
47. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
48. Wasti, S. A., ve Erdil, S. E. (2007). Bireycilik ve Toplulukçuluk Değerlerinin Ölçülmesi: Benlik Kurgusu ve INDCOL Ölçeklerinin Türkçe Geçerlemesi, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1-2), s.39-66.
49. Xie, X., Yu, Y., Chen, X. ve Chen, X. (2006). The Measurement of Cooperative and Competitive Personality. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(1), s.116–125.
50. Yerlikaya, Y. G. ve Doğruyol, B. (2020). İşbirliği ölçeği: Kültürel adaptasyon. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (8), s.350-363.
51. Yi, Y. J. ve Park, K. H. (2015). Motivational Needs On Team Performance Of Korean Nursing Students, International Nursing Review, 62(1), s.47-53.
52. Wagner III, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-173.
53. Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency And Communion As Conceptual Coordinates For The Understanding And Measurement Of Interpersonal Behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking Clearly About Psychology: Essays İn Honor Of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1. Matters Of Public İnterest; Vol. 2. Personality And Psychopathology (pp. 89–113). University of Minnesota Press.
54. Wiggins, J. S. ve Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality Structure: The Return Of The Big Five. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson ve S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook Of Personality Psychology (pp. 737–765). Academic Press.