Doğaya Bağlılık Eğilimi Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 61, 2232 - 2257, 27.09.2024

Banu Akbaş , Mine Canan Durmuşoğlu

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1455914

Öz

Bu çalışma, Brügger, Kaiser ve Roczen (2011) tarafından geliştirilen “Doğaya Bağlılık Eğilimi” Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasıdır. Ölçme aracının dilsel eşdeğerlik, ölçüt geçerliği ve yapı geçerliği analizleri yapılmıştır. Ölçek farklı çalışma gruplarıyla yetişkinlerden oluşan örneklemlere uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğine yönelik kanıt aramak için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları ölçeğin üç farklı boyut oluşturduğunu göstermiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ise bu üç boyutun ilişkili olduğu ve ikincil düzey faktör yapısının veriyle uyumlu olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu boyutlar doğaya bağlılık ve davranışsal sıklık, doğaya bağlılık ve öz değerlendirme ile doğaya bağlılık ve tercihler boyutlarıdır. Ölçeğin güvenirlik analizi sonucunda Cronbach alfa katsayısı .91 olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar, Doğaya Bağlılık Eğilimi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonunun (34 Madde) güvenilir ve geçerli olduğunu ve üç faktör kapsamında açıklandığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Doğaya bağlılık, biyofili, doğa, çevre, ölçek

Adaptation of Disposition to Connect with Nature Scale into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

This study is the adaptation of the "Disposition to Connect with Nature" Scale developed by Brügger, Kaiser and Roczen (2011) into Turkish. Linguistic equivalence, criterion validity and construct validity analyses were conducted. The scale was applied to samples of adults with different study groups. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to seek evidence for the construct validity of the scale. The results of the exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale formed three different dimensions. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that these three dimensions were related and the secondary level factor structure was compatible with the data. These dimensions are nature connectedness and behavioral frequency, nature connectedness and self-evaluation and nature connectedness and preferences. As a result of the reliability analysis of the scale, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to be .91. The results show that the Turkish version (34 Items) of the Disposition to Connect with Nature Scale is a reliable and valid scale and is explained within the scope of three factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nature connectedness, biophilia, nature, environment, scale

Kaynakça

• Andic, D. & Mazar, S. (2023). Teachers’ connectedness to nature, education for sustainable development and the contemporary teaching of the subject “nature and society” in Croatian schools, Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 25(1), 86-97, doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2023-0006
• Andic, D. & Tatalovic-Vorkapic, S. (2022). How Much Do Children Love Nature? Validation Of the Biophilia Interview and A Revised Connectedness to Nature Index Among Preschool Children, the State Problems and Needs the Modern Education Community (Edi: Jelena Stevanovic, Dragana Gundogan, Branislav Randelovic, Book of Proceedings, 28th International Scientific Conference “Educational Research and School Practice”, Institute for Educational Research, Belgrade, Serbia.
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170
• Barrable, A. (2019). The case for nature connectedness as a distinct goal of early childhood education. International Journal of Early Children. 6, 59–70.
• Barrable, A., & Booth, D. (2020). Nature connection in early childhood: A quantitative cross-sectional study. Sustainability, 12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010375
• Baste, I.A.; Watson, R.T.; Brauman, K.I.; Samper, C.; Walzer, C. (2021). Making peace with nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity, and pollution emergencies. Global Environment Change, 73, 102466.
• Bektaş, F., Kural, B., & Orçan, F. (2017). Doğaya bağlılık ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Niğde Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 77-86.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford.
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
• Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G. ve Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16(4), 324-333. http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2011-29023-008.html
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: istatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (28. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (29. ed.). Pegem Akademi.
• Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 976.
• Chawla, L., (1999). Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action. Journal of Environment Education, 31, 15–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598628
• Chawla, L. (2020). Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: A review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat. 2, 619–642.
• Cheng, J.C.-H., Monroe, M.C., (2012). Connection to nature: children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment Behavior, 44, 31–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
• Clayton, S., (2003). Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and an Operational Definition, in: Clayton, S., Opotow, S. (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: the psychological significance of nature. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 45–65.
• Çakır, B., Karaarslan, G., Şahin, E., & Ertepınar, H. (2015). Adaptation of Nature Relatedness Scale to Turkish. Elementary Education Online, 14(4), 1370-1383. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.95299
• Davis, J.L., Green, J.D. & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environment Psychology, 29, 173–180. doi: https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp .2008.11.001
• Divya, C. & Naachimuthu, K.P. (2020) Human nature connection and mental health: What do we know so far? Indian J. Health Well-Being, 11, 84–92.
• Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G. & Jones, R.E., (2000). Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
• Dutcher, D.D., Finley, J.C., Luloff, A.E. & Johnson, J.B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environmental Behavior, 39, 474–493. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444
• Gómez-Méndez, I., & Joly, E. (2023). Regression with missing data, a comparison study of techniques based on random forests. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 93(12), 1924-1949. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2022.2163646
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 53(9), 1689-1699. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
• Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90050-0
• Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H. A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and individual differences, 51(2), 166-171.
• Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 351-362. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351
• Ives, C.D.; Giusti, M.; Fischer, J.; Abson, D.J.; Klaniecki, K.; Dorninger, C.; Laudan, J.; Barthel, S.; Abernethy, P.; Martín-López, B.; et al. (2017). Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion Environment Sustainable, 26, 106–113.
• Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111-117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115
• Kals E, Schumacher D. & Montada, L. (1999) Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environmental Behavior, 31, 178–202. doi: https ://doi.org/10.1177/00139 16992 19720 56
• Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (26. Baskı). Nobel Yayınları.
• Kellert, S.R. (1993) The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature. In: S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42-69). Island Press, Washington DC.
• Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
• Klaniecki, K. (2019). Scales of human-nature connectedness influences on sustainability aspirations and pro-environmental behaviours. [Doctoral Thesis]. Leuphana University.
• Kılıç, A. F. (2022a). Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde boyut sayısına karar verme: Yöntemlere kısa bir bakış. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 51(Özel sayı 1), Ö305-Ö318.
• Kılıç, A. F. (2022b). Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde açımlayıcı faktör analizi. İçinde M. Acar-Güvendir & Y. Özer-Özkan (Ed.), Tüm yönleriyle ölçek geliştirme süreci (ss. 69-129). Pegem Akademi.
• Kılıç, A. F. (2023a). Geçerlik ve kanıtları. İçinde İ. Uysal (Ed.), R Programlama Diliyle A’dan Z’ye Ölçek Uyarlama (ss. 61-113). Nobel.
• Kılıç, A. F. (2023b). Güvenirlik ve analiz yöntemleri. İçinde İ. Uysal (Ed.), R programlama diliyle A’dan Z’ye ölçek uyarlama (ss. 115-151). Nobel.
• Kılıç, A. F., & Doğan, N. (2021). Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixed-format data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 21-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.782351
• Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2023). Temel istatistik. EPODDER.
• Kilic, A. F. (2023). Factor analysis for all (FAFA) (0.2) [Software]. https://afarukkilic.shinyapps.io/Factor_Analysis_For_All_FAFA/
• Kilic, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2022). To what extent are item discrimination values realistic? A new index for two-dimensional structures. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 728-740. doi: https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1098757
• Koyuncu, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2019). The use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: A document analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198), 361-388. doi: https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7665
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2023). Factor (Version 12.04.02) [Computer software]. Universitat Rovirai Virgili.
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2011). The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340-364. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
• Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
• Maccallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling of fit involving a particular measure of model. Psychological Methods, 13(2), 130-149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
• Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of environmental psychology, 68, 101389.
• Mayer, F.S. & Frantz, C.M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environment Psychology, 24, 503–515. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715- 740. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
• Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813
• Olivos-Jara, P., Segura-Fernández, R., Rubio-Pérez, C., & Felipe-García, B. (2020). Biophilia and biophobia as emotional attribution to nature in children of 5 years old. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 511. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00511
• Otto, S., & Pensinni, P. (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behavior. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009
• Pantanowitz, A., & Marwala, T. (2009). Missing data imputation through the use of the random forest algorithm. Içinde W. Yu & E. N. Sanchez (Eds.), Advances in Computational Intelligence (C. 116, ss. 53-62). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03156-4_6
• Perkins, H.E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 455–463. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004
• Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of happiness studies, 21, 1145-1167.
• Sabloff, A. (2001). Reordering the natural world: Human and animals in the city. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/ec13078
• Sarıçam, H., & Şahi̇n, S. H. (2015). Doğayla ilişkili olma ölçeğinin ilk psikometrik bulguları ve öz-aşkınlıkla ilişkisi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2015(24). doi: https://doi.org/10.12780/uusbd.70289
• Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
• Schultz, P.W., (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environment Psychology, 21, 327–339. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
• Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. In: P. Schmuck & W. P., Schultz (Eds.) Psychology of Sustainable Development. Boston, MA: Springer US.
• Schultz, P.W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J.J. & Khazian, A.M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7
• Schultz, P.W. & Tabanico, J., (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied. Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x
• Shah, A. D., Bartlett, J. W., Carpenter, J., Nicholas, O., & Hemingway, H. (2014). Comparison of Random Forest and Parametric Imputation Models for imputing missing data using MICE: A CALIBER study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(6), 764-774. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt312
• Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-base cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561-581. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001391650203400500
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64-78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
• Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209-220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
• Uysal, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2022a). Çok değişkenli normallik: Testler ne kadar doğru ne kadar güçlü? İçinde F. Nayır & Ş. Poyrazlı (Ed.), Eğitim Bilimlerinde Güncel Araştırmalar. Anı.
• Uysal, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2022b). Normal dağılım ikilemi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 12(1), 220-248. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.962653
• Velicer, W. F. (1976). The relation between factor score estimates, image scores, and principal component scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(1), 149-159. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447603600114
• Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. Wiley.
• Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Wilson, E.O. (2002). The future of life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. World Economic Forum (2022). BiodiverCities by 2030: Transforming Cities’ Relationship with Nature. Insight Report; World Economic Forum: New York, NY, USA.
• Zygmont, C., & Smith, M. R. (2014). Robust factor analysis in the presence of normality violations, missing data, and outliers: Empirical questions and possible solutions. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10(1), 40-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.10.1.p040
• Zylstra, M.J., Knight, A.T., Esler, K.J. & Le Grange, L.L.L., (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: an interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Review, 2, 119–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3