İŞ YERİNDE İYİ OLUŞ ÖLÇEĞİNİN UYARLAMA ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı İş Yerinde İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlamasını yapmak, geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Bu kapsamda kamu ve özel sektörde çeşitli alanlarda çalışan % 55’i kadın, % 45’i ise erkek olmak üzere 207 kişi üzerinde uygulama yapılmıştır. Dilsel eşdeğerliği sağlamak için yapılan çalışmalardan sonra geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin üç faktörlü yapısını sınamak için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Bu faktörler, yaşam iyi oluş, iş yeri iyi oluş ve psikolojik iyi oluşu içermektedir. Analiz sonrası elde edilen uyum indeksleri ölçeğin üç boyutlu yapısının Türkiye örnekleminde de korunduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Kapsam geçerliği için yapılan analiz sonucunda, ölçeğin Kopenhag Psikososyal Risk Değerlendirme Ölçeği’nin alt boyutları ile arasında anlamlı düzeyde ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin güvenirlik çalışması için yapılan analiz sonucunda cronbach alfa değeri .91 olarak bulunmuştur. Buna ek olarak, alt ölçeklerin cronbach alfa değerleri; yaşam iyi oluş .88, iş yeri iyi oluş .91 ve psikolojik iyi oluş .80 olarak bulunmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda İş Yerinde İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin, iş yerinde çalışanların iyi oluş düzeyini değerlendirmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• iş yerinde iyi oluş
• iyi oluş
• ölçek uyarlama
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik

ADAPTATION STUDY OF THE WORKPLACE WELL-BEING SCALE

Öz

This study aims to adapt the Employee Well-Being Scale into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability. In this context, the application was conducted on 207 people, 55% of whom were women and 45% were men. These participants were employed in diverse roles across both the public and private sectors. After the studies to ensure linguistic equivalence, validity and reliability analyses were conducted. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the three-dimensional structure of the scale. These three dimensions include life well-being, workplace well-being, and psychological well-being. The fit indices obtained after the analysis confirm that the three-dimensional structure of the scale is preserved in the Turkish sample. As a result of the analysis conducted for content validity, significant relationships were found between the scale and the sub-dimensions of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Risk Assessment Scale. The analysis conducted for the reliability study of the scale revealed a Cronbach's alpha value of .91. In addition, Cronbach's alpha values of the subscales; Life well-being was found to be .88, workplace well-being was .91 and psychological well-being was .80. As a result of the research, it was determined that the Employee Well-Being Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool in assesing the well-being level of employees in the workplace.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• workplace well-being
• well-being
• scale adaptation
• validity
• reliability

Kaynakça

1. Angner, E. (2010). Subjective Well-being. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(3), 361-368.
2. Bayhan Karapinar, P., Metin Camgoz, S. ve Tayfur Ekmekci, O. (2020). Employee Wellbeing, Workaholism, Work–Family Conflict and Instrumental Spousal Support: A Moderated Mediation Model. Journal of Happiness Studies 21, 2451–2471.
3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
4. Danna, K. ve Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 157–384.
5. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
6. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43.
7. Diener, E. et al. (2009). New Measures of Well-Being. In: Diener, E. (eds) Assessing Well-Being. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht.
8. Diener, E. ve Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43.

9. Dimotakis, N., Scott, B. A. ve Koopman, J. (2010). An experience sampling investigation of workplace interactions, affective states, and employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 572–588.
10. Dreer, B. (2021). Teachers’ well-being and job satisfaction: the important role of positive emotions in the workplace. Educational Studies, 1-17.
11. Guest, D.E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 22-38.
12. Hosie, P.J. ve Sevastos, P. (2009). “Does the “happy-productive worker” thesis apply to managers?”. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2(2), 131-160.
13. Huppert, F.A. (2009). Psychological Well-being: Evidence Regarding its Causes and Consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 1, 137-164.
14. Jöreskog, K. G. ve Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software International.
15. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187-200.
16. Kalafatoğlu, M. R. ve Balcı-Çelik, S. (2020). Genel İyi Oluş Ölçeği Kısa Formu’nun Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15 (25), 3633-3653.
17. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed, New York: Guilford Press Kundi, Y.M., Aboramadan, M., Elhamalawi, E.M.I. ve Shahid, S. (2021). "Employee psychological well-being and job performance: exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms". International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(3), 736-754.
18. Leavitt, K., Fong, C. T. ve Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Asking about Well-Being Gets You Half an Answer: Intra-Individual Processes of Implicit and Explicit Job Attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 672-687.
19. Longo, Y., Coyne, I. ve Joseph, S. (2018). Development of the short version of the scales of general well-being: The 14-item SGWB. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 31–34.
20. Mamacı, M., Şişlioğlu, M.,M. ve Altun, S. (2020). Perakende Sektörü Çalışanlarında Örgütsel Adalet Ve Çalışan İyi Oluşu Arasındaki İlişkide Güç Mesafesinin Düzenleyici Rolü, Uluslararası Akademik Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6 (9), 20-41.
21. Miao, R. ve Cao, Y. (2019). High-Performance Work System, Work Well-Being, and Employee Creativity: Cross-Level Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(9), 1640.
22. O'Rourke, N., Psych, R. ve Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Sas Institute.
23. Salas-Vallina, A., Alegre, J. ve López-Cabrales, Á. (2021). The challenge of increasing employees’ well-being and performance: How human resource management practices and engaging leadership work together toward reaching this goal. Human Resource Management Journal., 60, 333–347.
24. Sarwar, H., Ishaq, M. I., Amin, A. ve Ahmed, R. (2020). Ethical leadership, work engagement, employees’ well-being, and performance: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(12), 2008-2026.
25. Shantz, A., Alfes, K. ve Arevshatian, L. (2016). HRM in healthcare: The role of work engagement. Personnel Review, 45(2), 274–295.
26. Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S. ve Jeswani, S. (2014). The Relationship Between Social Support and Subjective Well-Being Across Age. Social indicators research, 117(2), 561–576.
27. Spreitzer, G. ve Porath, C. (2012). Creating Sustainable Performance. Harvard Business Review, 90, 92-99.
28. Şahan, C. (2016). Kopenhag Psikososyal Risk Değerlendirme Ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
29. Telef, B. B. (2013). Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3), 374-384.
30. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J. ve Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5, 63.
31. Vandenberghe, C., Panaccio, A., Bentein, K., Mignonac, K. ve Roussel, P. (2011). Assessing longitudinal change of and dynamic relationships among role stressors, job attitudes, turnover intention, and well-being in neophyte newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 652–671.
32. Wardani, L. M. I. ve Noviyani, T. (2020). Employee well-being as a mediator of correlation between psychological capital and psychological climate. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 9(2), 47-63.
33. Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 193–210.
34. Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B. ve Laski, S. (2005). Organizational stress through the lens of Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. In P. L. Perrewé ve D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Exploring interpersonal dynamics (pp. 167–220). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
35. Wright, T. A. ve Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33(2), 141–160.
36. Wright, T. A. ve Cropanzano, R. (1997). Well-being, satisfaction, and job performance: Another look at the happy/productive worker hypothesis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 364-368.
37. Wright, T. A. ve Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84–94.
38. Wright T. ve Hobfoll S. (2004). Commitment, Psychological Well-Being and Job Performance: An Examination of Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and Job. Burnout. Journal of Business and Management; Fort Collins. ;9(4):389-406.
39. World Health Organization (WHO) (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization, New York: WHO
40. Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H. ve Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 621–644.