Dissolution Consideration Scale: Adaptation to Turkish, Validity and Reliability Study

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 2373 - 2387, 28.08.2025

Fatma Selda Öz Soysal , Orkide Bakalım , Arzu Taşdelen Karçkay

https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1672242

Öz

Thoughts of separation are an important variable that can influence individuals’ decisions to maintain or terminate a romantic relationship. The aim of this study was to adapt the Dissolution Consideration Scale, originally developed to assess separation thoughts in romantic relationships, into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability. The participants consisted of 715 university students who reported being in a romantic relationship. As part of the adaptation process, analyses were conducted to assess the scale’s language validity, construct validity, and reliability. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the scale demonstrated an excellent fit to a unidimensional structure within the Turkish sample (χ²/df = 1.8; GFI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03). Furthermore, negative correlations were found between thoughts of separation and both anxious attachment and relationship commitment, whereas a significant positive correlation was observed with avoidant attachment. The test-retest reliability coefficient of the scale was .74, and Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as .84. These findings support that the Dissolution Consideration Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for use in the Turkish cultural context.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dissolution consideration scale , romantic relationships , attachment styles , validity and reliability.

Ayrılık Düşüncesi Ölçeği: Türkçe’ye Uyarlama, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Ayrılık düşüncesi romantik ilişkilerde bireylerin bir ilişkiyi sürdürme veya sonlandırmaya yönelik kararlarını etkileyebilecek önemli bir değişkendir. Bu araştırmanın amacı romantik ilişkilerde ayrılık düşüncesinin ölçülmesi amacıyla geliştirilmiş olan Ayrılık Düşüncesi Ölçeği’nin (Dissolution Consideration Scale) Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve geçerlik güvenirlik çalışmasının yapılmasıdır. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını romantik ilişki içinde olduklarını belirten 715 üniversite öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Uyum çalışmaları kapsamında ölçüm aracının dil geçerliği, yapı geçerliği ve güvenirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları ölçeğin Türkiye örnekleminde de tek boyutlu yapıyla mükemmel uyum gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur (χ²/df = 1.8; GFI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03). Ayrıca ayrılık düşüncesi ile kaygılı bağlanma ve ilişki bağlanımı arasında negatif, kaçınmacı bağlanma arasında pozitif ve anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin test tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı .74, Cronbach’s alpha katsayısı ise .84 olarak elde edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak elde edilen bulgular Ayrılık Düşüncesi Ölçeği’nin Türk kültürü için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu doğrulamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ayrılık düşüncesi , ölçek , romantik ilişkiler , bağlanma stilleri , geçerlik , güvenirlik

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Springer-Verlag
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
• Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190-1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011
• Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
• Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine- year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American journal of Epidemiology, 109(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112674
• Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.
• Büyükşahin, A., Hasta,D.& Hovardaoğlu, S. (2005) İlişki istikrarı ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 8(16),25-37.
• Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644.
• Davis, K. E., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Attachment style and interpersonal functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238374.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
• Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics Using SPSS (3rd Edition). SAGE Publication. Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of family psychology, 7(1), 57.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
• Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221.
• Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 117–143). Jessica Kingsley.
• Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of human tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis of structures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 8-30.
• Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1991). Stress and immune function in humans. In R. Ader, D. L. Felten, & N. Cohen (Eds.), Psychoneuroimmunology (2nd ed., pp. 849–867). Academic Press.
• Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.The Guilford Press Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. The Guilford Press.
• Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.
• Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175– 204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202.
• Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.
• Savcı, M. & Aysan, F. (2016). Yakın ilişkilerde yaşantılar ölçeği kısa formu’nun Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. VIII. Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Kongresi içinde (s.837-846). Çanakkale.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, 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.
• Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
• Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
• VanderDrift, L. E., Agnew, C. R., & Wilson, J. E. (2009). Nonmarital romantic relationship commitment and leave behavior: The mediating role of dissolution consideration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1220-1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720933754.
• Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041.
• Weiss, R. L., & Cerreto, M. C. (1980). The marital status inventory: Development of a measure of dissolution potential. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8(2), 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926188008250358