İŞLEMSEL ESNEKLİK ÖLÇEĞİ TÜRKÇE FORMUNUN PSİKOMETRİK ÖZELLİKLERİ: GEÇERLİLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, İşlemsel Esneklik Ölçeği (İEÖ) Türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek, geçerlilik ve güvenirliğini test etmektir. Araştırma, Şubat-Nisan 2024 tarihleri arasında, bir kamu hastanesinde görev yapan 213 hemşire üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Ölçek, çevrimiçi anket yöntemiyle uygulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği, Cronbach’s α ve McDonald's ω katsayılarıyla güvenirliği değerlendirilmiştir. Verilerin değerlendirilmesinde R (Sürüm 4.4.1) ve JASP (Sürüm 0.18.1) programları kullanılmıştır. DFA Sonuçları, ölçeğin 10 maddeden oluşan 2 faktörlü yapısı doğrulanmıştır (χ2/df=2.221, CFI=0.929, TLI=0.906, RMSEA=0.084 ve SRMR=0.053). Maddelerin faktör yükleri 0.501-0.782 aralığında değişmektedir. Ölçeğin geneli için Cronbach’s α katsayısı 0.851, McDonald's ω katsayısı 0.855 ve kompozit güvenirlik ise 0.872’dir. Yakınsak geçerlilik için faktörler arasındaki korelasyon katsayısı incelenmiş ve ölçüt geçerlilik duygusal ve psikolojik esneklik ölçekleri ile ilişkisi analiz edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasında orta düzeyde ve pozitif yönlü ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir (p<0.01). Sonuçlar, Türkçe İEÖ’nin, işlemsel esnekliği değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. İEÖ, sağlık hizmetlerinde hemşirelerin stratejik ve operasyonel süreçlerinin etkinliğini değerlendirmeye ve esneklik geliştirme stratejilerine rehberlik etmeye katkı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşlemsel Esneklik
• Geçerlilik
• Güvenirlik

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY SCALE: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Öz

The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Operational Flexibility Scale (OFS) and to test its validity and reliability. The study was conducted between February and April 2024, involving 213 nurses working at a public hospital. The scale was administered using an online survey method. Construct validity was assessed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), while reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω coefficients. The data were analysed using R (Version 4.4.1) and JASP (Version 0.18.1) software. CFA results confirmed the two-factor structure of the scale, consisting of 10 items (χ²/df = 2.221, CFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.906, RMSEA = 0.084, and SRMR = 0.053). Factor loadings for the items ranged between 0.501 and 0.782. Cronbach's α coefficient for the overall scale was 0.851, McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.855, and composite reliability was 0.872. For convergent validity, the correlation between the factors was examined, and the scale's relationship with emotional and psychological resilience measures was analysed. A moderate and positive correlation was found between the variables (p < 0.01). As a result, the Turkish version of OFS is a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing operational flexibility. The OFS can help evaluate the effectiveness of nurses' strategic and operational processes in healthcare services and guide the development of flexibility strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Operational Flexibility
• Reliability
• Validity

Kaynakça

1. Alolayyan, MN, Ali, KAM ve Idris, F. (2012). The influence of operational flexibility on hospital performance results: a structural equation modelling (SEM) approaches. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 13(4), 478-497.
2. Alolayyan, M., Al-Qudah, M., Hunitie, M., Akour, I., Alneimat, S., Al-Hawary, S. ve Alshurideh, M. (2022). Validating the operational flexibility dimensions in the medical service sectors. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(4), 1397-1404.
3. Alolayyan, MN ve Alyahya, MS. (2023). Operational flexibility impact on hospital performance through the roles of employee engagement and management capability. BMC Health Services Research, 23(1), 19.
4. Anderson, JC ve Gerbing, DW. (1984). The Effect of Sampling Error on Convergence, Improper Solutions, and Goodness of Fit Indices for Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 49,155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170
5. Babbu, AH (2016). Flexibility: a key concept in hospital design. Int J Appl Innov Eng Manag, 5, 24-28.
6. Bal, PM ve Izak, M. (2021). Paradigms of flexibility: A systematic review of research on workplace flexibility. European Management Review, 18(1), 37-50.
7. Bentler, PM ve Bonett, DG. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
8. Bentler, PM ve Chou, CP. (1987). Practical Issues in Structural Modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004

9. Bollen, KA (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Jon Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179
10. Bonniga, R. ve Saraswathi, DA. (2020). Literature review of cronbachalphacoefficient and mcdonald's omega coefficient. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(06).
11. Bright, TJ, Wong, A., Dhurjati, R., Bristow, E., Bastian, L., Coeytaux, RR, ... ve Lobach, D. (2012). Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(1), 29-43.
12. Brislin, R., Lonner, W. ve Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley.
13. Browne, MW ve Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen ve J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA.
14. Browne, MW ve Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
15. Butler, TW ve Ewald, J. (2000). The fundamentals of flexibility. Hospital Topics, 78(3), 11-18.
16. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470–483.
17. Chahal, H., Gupta, M. ve Lonial, S. (2018). Operational flexibility in hospitals: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Production Research, 56(10), 3733-3755.
18. Çapık, C., Gözüm, S. ve Aksayan, S. (2018). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: Güncellenmiş rehber. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, 26(3), 199-210.
19. DeVellis, RF (2014). Ölçek geliştirme: Kuram ve uygulamalar (Çev. Ed. T. Totan). Ankara: Nobel.
20. Dias, C. ve Escoval, A. (2014). Organizational flexibility as a strategic option: fostering dynamic capabilities of hospitals. Healthcare Quarterly, 17(2), 38-43.
21. Evans, JD. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
22. Fu, F., Chow, A., Li, J. ve Cong, Z. (2018). Emotional Flexibility: Development and application of a scale in adolescent earthquake survivor. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10(2), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000278
23. Ginn, GO, Lee, RP ve Ellis, T. (2006). Community orientation, strategic flexibility, and financial performance in hospitals. Journal of healthcare Management, 51(2), 111.
24. Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, JR ve Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 13.
25. Gliem, JA ve Gliem, RR. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
26. Gnanlet, A., Sharma, L., McDermott, C. ve Yayla-Kullu, M. (2021). Impact of workforce flexibility on quality of care: moderating effects of workload and severity of illness. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(12), 1785-1806.
27. Haksöz, Ç., Katsikopoulos, K. ve Gigerenzer, G. (2018). Less can be more: how to make operations more flexible and robust with fewer resources. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 28(6), 1-9.
28. Harvey, J., Lefebvre, LA ve Lefebvre, E. (1997). Flexibility and technology in services: a conceptual model. International Journal of Operation and Production Management, 17, 1, 29-45
29. Hu, LT ve Bentler, PM. (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.
30. Idris, F., Hassan, MEM. ve Rahman, NA. (2010). The impacts of structural and infrastructural elements to service operations flexibility: the influence of technology. In 2010 International Conference on Education and Management Technology (pp. 27-31). IEEE.
31. Idris, F., Rahman, NMNA, Hassan, MEM, Aminudin, N. ve Alolayyan, MN (2013). Validating dimensions of operations flexibility in Malaysian service firms: a confirmatory factor analytics approach. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 14(1), 79-94.
32. İme, Y. ve Ümmet, D. (2022). Adaptation of Emotional Flexibility Scale: Its association with subjective well being and resilience during Covid-19 pandemic. Child Indicators Research, 15, 2141–2154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-022-09959-9
33. Jackson, DL (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_6
34. Jana, S. ve Dawn, SK. (2025). Operational flexibility, employee engagement, and management capability: A trifecta for enhanced hospital performance. International Journal of Research in Management, 7(1): 301-308.
35. Jöreskog, KG. ve Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
36. Karakuş, S. ve Akbay, SE. (2020). Psikolojik esneklik ölçeği: Uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 32-43.
37. Kessel, M., Hannemann-Weber, H. ve Kratzer, J. (2012). Innovative work behavior in healthcare: The benefit of operational guidelines in the treatment of rare diseases. Health Policy, 105(2-3), 146-153.
38. Kogut, B. ve Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management Science, 40(1), 123-139.
39. Kline, RB (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd Edition. New York: The Guilford Press.
40. Kumar, P. (2022). Internal flexibility in health-care organizations: a value-laden perspective on sustainability. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(3), 721-742.
41. Lishinski, A. (2018). LavaanPlot: Path diagrams for Lavaan models via DiagrammeR. R package.: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaanPlot/index.html
42. Lomax, RG ve Schumacker, RE. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610904
43. MacCallum, RC, Browne, MW ve Sugawara, HM (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological methods, 1(2), 130. Marsh, HW, Hau, KT, Artelt, C., Baumert, J. ve Peschar, JL. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311–360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1
44. Nancarrow, SA. (2015). Six principles to enhance health workforce flexibility. Human resources for health, 13, 1-12.
45. Nunnally, JC (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
46. Ojha, D., Struckell, E., Acharya, C. ve Patel, PC. (2021). Managing environmental turbulence through innovation speed and operational flexibility in B2B service organizations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(9), 1627-1645.
47. Reed, K. ve Blunsdon, B. (1998). Organizational flexibility in Australia. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3), 457-477.
48. Reichenheim, ME ve Moraes, CL. (2007). Operationalizing the cross-cultural adaptation of epidemological measurement instruments. Revista De Saúde Pública, 41, 665-673.
49. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
50. Sawhney, R. (2006). Interplay between Uncertainty and Flexibility across the Value-Chain: Towards a Transformation Model of Manufacturing Flexibility. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5): 476–493.
51. Schreiber, JB, Nora, A., Stage, FK, Barlow, EA ve King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
52. Sharma, MK, Sushil ve Jain, PK. (2010). Revisiting flexibility in organizations: exploring its impact on performance. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11, 51-68.
53. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik (1. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ., Ankara, 499-559.
54. Tucker, LR ve Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10.
55. Uygur, SS ve Karaca, R. (2020). Psikolojik Esneklik Ölçeği: Geliştirilmesi, Geçerliği ve Güvenirliği. Turkish Studies, 15, 5.
56. Uysal, H. ve Ozcan, Ş. (2011). A Turkish version of myocardial infarction dimensional assessment scale (TR-MIDAS): reliability–validity assesment. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 10(2), 115-123.
57. Ward, MJ, Ferrand, YB, Laker, LF, Froehle, CM, Vogus, TJ, Dittus, RS, ... ve Pines, JM. (2015). The nature and necessity of operational flexibility in the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 65(2), 156-161.
58. Wise, S., Duffield, C., Fry, M. ve Roche, M. (2017). Workforce flexibility–in defence of professional healthcare work. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 31(4), 503-516.
59. Yousuf, A., Haddad, H., Pakurár, M., Kozlovskyi, S., Mohylova, A., Shlapak, O. ve János, F. (2019). The effect of operational flexibility on performance: A field study on small and medium-sized industrial companies in Jordan. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 15(1), 47-60.
60. Yu, W., Zhao, G., Liu, Q. ve Song, Y. (2021). Role of big data analytics capability in developing integrated hospital supply chains and operational flexibility: An organizational information processing theory perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120417.