Sporda Şike Algısı Ölçeği (SŞAÖ): Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırma, sporda şike algısını çok boyutlu bir yapı olarak ölçmeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ölçek geliştirme süreci madde havuzu oluşturma, kapsam geçerliliğinin sınanması, açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) aşamalarından oluşmaktadır. İlgili literatür taraması ve uzman görüşleri temelinde beş boyutu kapsayan 67 maddelik bir havuz oluşturulmuş, kapsam geçerliği değerlendirmesinin ardından 12 madde elenmiştir. AFA, spor müsabakalarını düzenli olarak takip eden 377 yetişkin bireyden oluşan örneklem üzerinde yürütülmüş, DFA ise bağımsız olarak toplanan 249 kişilik ikinci örneklem üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. AFA sonucunda 32 maddenin beş faktör altında toplandığı belirlenmiş, DFA sürecinde beş madde daha elenerek ölçeğin 27 maddelik nihai yapısına ulaşılmıştır. Elde edilen beş faktör sırasıyla Yaygınlık Algısı, Kontrol Edilebilirlik Algısı, Kişisel Etki Algısı, Kurumsal Mücadele Algısı ve Normalleşme Algısı olarak isimlendirilmiştir. DFA uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir ölçütleri karşıladığı, faktörlere ait Cronbach alfa ve bileşik güvenilirlik değerlerinin yeterli düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Faktörler arası korelasyon değerleri ve Fornell-Larcker kriteri ölçeğin ayırt edici geçerliliğini desteklemektedir. Sporda Şike Algısı Ölçeği, şike algısının bireysel, kurumsal ve toplumsal boyutlarını araştırmak isteyen çalışmalara metodolojik bir zemin sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sporda şike
• şike algısı
• ölçek geliştirme
• açımlayıcı faktör analizi
• doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

Match-Fixing Perception in Sport Scale (MFPSS): A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess match-fixing perception in sport as a multidimensional construct. The scale development process consisted of item pool construction, content validity assessment, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). An initial pool of 67 items covering five dimensions was generated through a comprehensive literature review and expert opinions. Following content validity evaluation, 12 items were eliminated. EFA was conducted on a sample of 377 adults who regularly follow sport competitions. CFA was performed on an independent second sample of 249 participants. EFA results indicated that 32 items loaded on five factors, and following the elimination of five additional items during CFA, the scale reached its final 27-item structure. The five factors were labeled Prevalence Perception, Controllability Perception, Personal Impact Perception, Institutional Response Perception, and Normalization Perception. CFA fit indices met acceptable thresholds, and Cronbach alpha and composite reliability values were satisfactory across all factors. Inter-factor correlations and the Fornell-Larcker criterion supported the discriminant validity of the scale. The Match-Fixing Perception Scale provides a methodological foundation for studies examining individual, institutional, and societal dimensions of match-fixing perception in sport.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Match-fixing in sport
• match-fixing perception
• scale development
• exploratory factor analysis
• confirmatory factor analysis

Kaynakça

1. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25001-2
2. Benford, R. D. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the "edutainment" industry. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00068.x
3. Brooks, G., Aleem, A., & Button, M. (2013). Fraud, corruption and sport. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137290717
4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.
5. Buraimo, B., Migali, G., & Simmons, R. (2016). An analysis of consumer response to corruption: Italy's Calciopoli scandal. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(1), 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12094
6. Ekici, H. (2013). Demografik özelliklere göre Türkiye'de sporda şike algısı ve Gaziantep ili örneği. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(7), 1-26. https://izlik.org/JA74FJ53NR
7. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
8. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286

9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
10. Funahashi, H., & Zheng, J. (2023). Modelling public trust in elite sport institutions: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test. European Sport Management Quarterly, 23(5), 1500-1522. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2022.2030779
11. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
12. Hardyns, W., Vanwersch, L., & Constandt, B. (2025). Should football care about its fans' trust? A study into the consequences of a large-scale fraud scandal on sports fans' integrity perceptions. Managing Sport and Leisure, 30(2), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2022.2148721
13. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
14. Hu, L., & 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
15. Huang, C. C., Wang, Y. M., Wu, T. W., & Wang, P. A. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217-221. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267
16. Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2010). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355692
17. Kızar, O., Dalkılıç, M. ve Bayrak, M. (2015). Futboldaki şike olayları hakkında spor adamları ve spor yazarlarının düşüncelerinin incelenmesi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(10), 212-222. https://doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.502
18. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
19. Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople's commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1328-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
20. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
21. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press. Manoli, A. E., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2015). 'The only game in town?': Football match-fixing in Greece. Trends in Organized Crime, 18(3), 196-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-014-9239-3
22. Manoli, A. E., Bandura, C., & Downward, P. (2020). Perceptions of integrity in sport: Insights into people's relationship with sport. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 12(2), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2020.1747101
23. Masters, A. (2015). Corruption in sport: From the playing field to the field of policy. Policy and Society, 34(2), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.04.002
24. Numerato, D. (2016). Corruption and public secrecy: An ethnography of football match-fixing. Current Sociology, 64(5), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115599815
25. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
26. Park, J. H., Choi, C. H., Yoon, J., & Girginov, V. (2019). How should sports match fixing be classified? Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1573595
27. Philippou, C. (2022). Anti-bribery and corruption in sport mega-events: Stakeholder perspectives. Sport in Society, 25(4), 819-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2021.1957836
28. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
29. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
30. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
31. Spapens, T., & Olfers, M. (2015). Match-fixing: The current discussion in Europe and the case of the Netherlands. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 23(4), 333-358. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-23032077
32. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. Transparency International. (2016). Global corruption report: Sport. Routledge.
33. Van Der Hoeven, S., Constandt, B., Manoli, A. E., van Bottenburg, M., Caneppele, S., & Willem, A. (2023). Match-fixing in European sports: Attitudes and experiences. Deviant Behavior, 44(11), 1664-1681. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2225678
34. Vieira, K. M., Visentini, M. S., & Cunha, R. T. (2022). Construction and validation of a corruption perception scale at the citizen level. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 20(4), 452-469. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120210173x
35. Visschers, J., Paoli, L., & Deshpande, A. (2020). Match-fixing: Football referees' attitudes and experiences. Crime, Law and Social Change, 74(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09880-3
36. Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe's content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286
37. Yıldız, M., Gülle, M., & Yıldız, Ö. (2018). Türk toplumunun sporda şike algısına yönelik görüşlerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi (Kırıkkale ili örneği). Türk Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 27-40. https://izlik.org/JA83HG53GJ
38. Yıldız, Y. (2016). The relationship between fan identification and moral disengagement of physical education and sports students. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(7), 402-410. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2541
39. Yilmaz, S., Manoli, A. E., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2019). An anatomy of Turkish football match-fixing. Trends in Organized Crime, 22(4), 375-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-018-9345-8
40. Zelyurt, M. K. (2017). Sonuçları açısından 3 Temmuz şike olayı. Sportif Bakış: Spor ve Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 16-32. https://izlik.org/JA85ZJ53CX