Örgütsel Kimliksizleşme Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 3, 873 - 903, 31.12.2025

Gülsen Gençdal , Hasan Basri Memduhoğlu , Nazım Çoğaltay

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, McGuire (2021) tarafından geliştirilen Örgütsel Kimliksizleşme Ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin geçerlik ile güvenirlik özelliklerini incelemektir. Araştırma verileri, Diyarbakır ili Yenişehir ilçesinde görev yapan 319 öğretmenden toplanmıştır. Uyarlama sürecinde öncelikle ölçek maddeleri Türkçeye çevrilmiş, 50 İngilizce öğretmeni ile dil eşdeğerliği sağlanmış ve uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda kültürel uyarlama tamamlanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği, AMOS programı kullanılarak Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile test edilmiştir. Güvenirlik düzeylerini belirlemek amacıyla Cronbach Alfa ve McDonald’s Omega iç tutarlılık katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Analiz sürecinde faktör yükü düşük olan bir madde ölçekten çıkarılmıştır. Bulgular, ölçeğin 11 madde ve üç alt boyuttan oluşan yapısının kabul edilebilir uyum iyiliği değerleri sunduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin geneli için Cronbach Alfa katsayısı 88, McDonald’s Omega katsayısı ise 884 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin eğitim çalışanlarının örgütsel kimliksizleşme düzeylerini belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu araştırma, eğitim örgütleri bağlamında gerçekleştirilecek nicel araştırmalara yöntemsel bir çerçeve sunarak alanyazına önemli katkılar sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kimliksizleşme , örgütsel kimliksizleşme , ölçek uyarlama , geçerlik ve güvenirlik , doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

The Adaptation of the Organizational Disidentification Scale into Turkish: A Study on Validity and Reliability

Öz

The aim of this study is to adapt the “Organizational Disidentification Scale,” developed by McGuire (2021), into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties. The study group consisted of 319 teachers working in the Yenişehir district of Diyarbakır. Scale items were translated into Turkish, linguistic equivalence was established with 50 English teachers, and cultural adaptation was finalized via expert opinions. To determine construct validity, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS. Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients were calculated for reliability. During analysis, one item was excluded due to low factor loading. Findings demonstrated that the scale’s structure, consisting of 11 items and three sub-dimensions (Distinction, Discontent, Disconnection), exhibited acceptable model fit indices. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was 88, and McDonald’s Omega was 884. Consequently, it was concluded that the Turkish version of the Organizational Disidentification Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring disidentification levels in educational contexts. This study provides a methodological framework for future quantitative research in educational organizations and contributes significantly to the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Disidentification , organizational disidentification , scale adaptation , validity and reliability , confirmatory factor analysis

Kaynakça

• Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and how of it. Indian Journal of Medical Specialties, 4(2), 330–333.
• Aktaş, K. (2019). A research to determine the effect of employees' level of commitment and organizational identification on performance perception [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Inonu University.
• Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059
• Aydoğdu, F. (2023). AVE ve CR hesaplama. https://www.fuataydogdu.com/avecr
• Bartel, C., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing organizational identities in interactions with others. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 115–130). Psychology Press.
• Becker, J. C., & Tausch, N. (2014). When group memberships are negative: The concept, measurement, and behavioral implications of psychological disidentification. Self and Identity, 13(3), 294–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.819991
• Bhardwaj, P. (2019). Types of sampling in research. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences, 5(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcs.jpcs_62_19
• Bhattacharya, C. B., & Elsbach, K. D. (2002). Us versus them: The roles of organizational identification and disidentification in social marketing initiatives. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.21.1.26.17608
• Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
• Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. Routledge.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470–483.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
• Canal, B., & Kaplan, M. (2017). The effect of organizational identification on individual creativity: A research in the banking sector [Unpublished master's thesis]. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University.
• Chang, K., Cheng, K. T., & Lee, I. L. (2011). Situational analysis on the association between membership criticality and group dynamics. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 23(2), 37–71.
• Chang, K., Kuo, C. C., Su, M., & Taylor, J. (2013). Dis-identification in organizations and its role in the workplace. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 68(3), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.7202/1018437ar
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Costas, J., & Fleming, P. (2009). Beyond dis-identification: A discursive approach to self-alienation in contemporary organizations. Human Relations, 62(3), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267081010
• Dean, J. (2008). ‘The lady doth protest too much’: Theorising disidentification in contemporary gender politics. Ideology in Discourse Analysis, 24, 1–19.
• Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533230
• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Doğan, N., Soysal, S., & Karaman, H. (2017). Can exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis be applied to the same sample? In A. Tanrıöver & N. Doğan (Eds.), Education in a globalizing world (pp. 372–400). Pegem Akademi.
• dos Santos, P. M., & Cirillo, M. A. (2023). Construction of the average variance extracted index for construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 52(4), 1639–1650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2021.1888122
• Dundar, N. (2018). Secondary school students' levels of identification with school and their perceptions of trust in teachers [Unpublished master's thesis]. İnönü University.
• Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
• Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
• Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 163–199). Elsevier/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.234
• Elsbach, K. D. (2001). Coping with hybrid organizational identities: Evidence from California legislative staff. Advances in Qualitative Organization Research, 3, 59–90.
• Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638
• Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated–mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1793
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
• Gardner, R. G. (2014). That’s why I don’t like you: An investigation of intergroup disidentification in a socialization context [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A&M University.
• Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–77. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
• Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G. D. (1983). Development of an "age universal" I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385677
• Gürlek, M., & Tuna, M. (2018). Theoretical foundations of organizational identification in terms of social identity theory. Journal of Management, Economics and Marketing Research, 2(3), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.29226/TR1001.2018.35
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach's alpha for estimating reliability. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
• Ikegami, T., & Ishida, Y. (2007). Status hierarchy and the role of dis-identification in discriminatory perception of outgroups. Japanese Psychological Research, 49(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2007.00340.x
• Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33.
• Karalar, S. (2015). The effect of reward management on organizational identification and workforce agility: A research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Trakya University.
• Karreman, D., & Spicer, A. (2007, August 9-11). Dis-identification in organisation [Conference presentation]. Nordic Academy of Management Conference, Bergen, Norway.
• Kline, R. B. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications.
• Kreiner, G. E. (2002). Operationalizing and testing the expanded model of identification. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2002, No. 1, pp. H1–H6). Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7517565
• Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.234
• Lai, J. Y., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2013). Defining who you are not: The roles of moral dirtiness and occupational and organizational disidentification in affecting casino employee turnover intention. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1659–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.012
• Lane, R. V., & Scott, S. G. (2007). The neural network model of organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.004
• Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59.
• Lawrence, B., & Kaufmann, P. J. (2011). Identity in franchise systems: The role of franchise associations. Journal of Retailing, 87(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.11.003
• Leiter, J. (1985). Work alienation in the textile industry: Reassessing Blauner. Work and Occupations, 12(4), 479–498.
• McGuire, M. S. (2021). Organizational disidentification scale development and construct validation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hofstra University.
• Mete, M., & Gundogmus, B. (2021). The mass psychology of terrorism: A psychopolitical review on the PKK. Journal of Academic Value Studies, 7(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.29228/javs.51086
• Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Sage Publications.
• Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Australian Copyright.
• Park, S. H. H. (2019). The roles of organizational identification and disidentification on restaurant employees’ behavioral intentions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Houston.
• Park, S. H., & Back, K. J. (2020). Modified scales for organizational identification and organizational disidentification for the foodservice industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, Article 102667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102667
• Pratt, M. G. (2001). Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An organizational psychology/organizational behavior perspective. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational context (pp. 25–52). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315800530
• Seçer, İ. (2018). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları (2. bs.). Anı Yayıncılık.
• Singh, S. (2003). Advanced sampling theory with applications: How Michael "selected" Amy (Vol. 1). Springer.
• Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapisal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Tavsancil, E. (2010). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Turnage, A. K. (2010). Identification and disidentification in organizational discourse: A metaphor analysis of e-mail communication at Enron [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina State University.
• Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Open University Press.
• Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self–efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x
• Yıldırım, M. C., Ekinci, A., & Öter, M. (2012). The effect of education supervisor assistants’ organizational justice perceptions on their level of professional burnout. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 45(1), 327–346.
• Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, H. E. (2009). Lisrel ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi. Pegem Akademi.
• Zagenczyk, T. J., Cruz, K. S., Woodard, A. M., Walker, J. C., Few, W. T., Kiazad, K., & Raja, M. (2013). The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the psychological contract breach–organizational identification/disidentification relationships. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 287–299.
• Zagenczyk, T. J., Gibney, R., Few, W. T., & Scott, K. L. (2011). Psychological contracts and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Journal of Labor Research, 32(3), 254–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-011-9111-z