Naturalistic Decision Making Scale NDMS : Conceptual Description and Scale Development Study

Öz

The aim of this study is to develop a “Natural Decision Making Scale” that can be used to measure naturalistic decision-making behaviors. Validity and reliability studies of the scale were conducted with the participation of 554 managers 63 firefighters, 143 police officers, 12 emergency medicine technicians, 184 military officers and 152 managers with at least 10 years of experience. In the scale development study, explanatory factor analysis, content validation, parallel tests item, discriminant and convergent validation tests conducted. Cronbach's alpha reliability value α = 0.809 was calculated. As a result of the analysis, a six-item “Natural Decision-Making Scale” was developed

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Naturalistic Decision Making Scale, Scale Development, Decision Making, Naturalistic Decision Making.

Doğal Karar Verme Ölçeği DKVÖ : Kavramsal Tanım ve Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı doğal karar verme davranışlarını ölçmede kullanılabilecek “Doğal Karar Verme Ölçeği”ni geliştirmektir. Ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışmaları en az 10 yıl deneyimi bulunan 554 yöneticinin 63 itfaiyeci, 143 polis, 12 acil servis ekibi, 184 askeri personel ve 152 yönetici katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmasında açıklayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmış, kriter geçerliliği yapılmış, madde ayırt edicilikleri belirlenmiş, paralel test yapılmış ve Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik değeri α=0.809 hesaplanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, altı maddelik “doğal karar verme ölçeği” geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğal Karar Verme Ölçeği, Ölçek Geliştirme, Karar Verme, Doğal Karar Verme

Kaynakça

1. Agor, W. H. (1986). The logic of intuitive decision making: A research-based approach for top management. Quorum Books.
2. Baron, J. (1998). Judgment misguided: Intuition and error in public decision making. Oxford University Press.
3. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press.
4. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815-824.
5. Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological science, 4(4), 215-220.
6. Beach, L. R., ve Lipshitz, R. (2017). Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making. Harris, D., Li Chin, W.. (Ed) Decision making in aviation içinde (85-102 ss). London: Routledge.
7. Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H. ve Tversky, A. (1988). Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa ve A. Tversky (Ed.), Decision interactions içinde (9–30 ss). Cambridge University Press. Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive
8. Bell, D.E., Howard R. ve Amos T. (1988). Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge University Press.

9. Boin, A., Hart, P. T., Stern, E. ve Sundelius, B. (2005). The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure” Cambridge University Press.
10. Bordley, R.F. (2001). Naturalistic decision making and prescriptive decision theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(5), 355-357.
11. Buchanan, L. ve Andrew O.C. (2006). "A brief history of decision making."Harvard Business Review, 84.1: 32.
12. Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81.
13. Chin, W.W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 1.
14. Cioffi, J. (2012). Expanding the scope of decision-making research for nursing and midwifery practice. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(4), 481-489.
15. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. ve Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 1.
16. Dowie, J., ve Elstein, A. (Eds.). (1988). Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge University Press.
17. Edwards, W. (2009). The theory of decision making. Oxford University Press.
18. Edwards, W., Newman, J. R., Snapper, K., ve Seaver, D. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation (No. 26). Chronicle Books.
19. Elliott, T. (2005). Expert decision-making in naturalistic environments: A summary of research . (No. DSTO-GD-0429). Defence Scıence and Technology Organısatıon Salısbury (Australıa) Systems Scıences Lab.
20. Endsley, M.R. (2017). Toward a theory of situation awarenes dynamic systems. Situational Awareness içinde (9-42 ss). Routledge.
21. Fernall, R. (2007). Military decision support. R. Flin, E. Salas, M. Strub, ve L. Martin (Ed.), Decision-making under stress, emerging themes and applications içinde (215–221 ss). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
22. Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility theory for decision making. (No. RAC-R-105). Research analysis corp McLean VA.
23. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
24. Groenendaal, J. ve Helsloot, I. (2016). The application of naturalistic decision making (NDM) and other research: lessons for frontline commanders. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(2), 173-185.
25. Gore, J. Banks, A. Millward, L. ve Kyriakidou, O. (2006). Naturalistic decision making and organizations: Reviewing pragmatic science, Organization Studies, 27: 925.
26. Harvey, R.J., Billings, R.S. ve Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the job diagnostic survey. Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 461–468.
27. Hinkin, T. R., ve Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the french and raven (1959) Bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 561–567.
28. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
29. Howard, R. A. (2007). The foundations of decision analysis revisited. Advances in Decision Analysis, 1, 32-56.
30. Helsloot, I., ve Groenendaal, J. (2011). Naturalistic decision making in forensic science: Toward a better understanding of decision making by forensic team leaders. Journal of forensic sciences, 56(4), 890-897,
31. Kahneman, D., Paul, S., ve Tversky A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Newyork, Cambridge University Press,
32. Kaempf, G.L. ve Klein, G. (2017). 11 Aeronautical decision making: The next generation. Aviation psychology in practice, 223.
33. Keller, N., Cokely, E.T., Katsikopoulos, K.V. ve Wegwarth, O. (2010). Naturalistic heuristics for decision making. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(3), 256-274.
34. Klein, G.A. (1986). Analogical decision making. Klein Associates Inc Yellow Springs Oh.
35. Klein, G.A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making (138-147 ss). New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
36. Klein, G. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. Naturalistic decision making, 285-292.
37. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human factors, 50(3), 456-460.
38. Klein, G. (2015). A naturalistic decision making perspective on studying intuitive decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 164-168.
39. Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., ve Clinton-Cirocco, A. (1986, September). Rapid decision making on the fire ground. Proceedings of the human factors society annual meeting içinde (Vol. 30, No. 6, 576-580 ss). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
40. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
41. Kobus, D.A., Proctor, S. ve Holste, S. (2001). Effects of experience and uncertainty during dynamic decision making. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(5), 275-290.
42. Leblebici, H. ve Gerald, R.S. (1981). Effects of environmental uncertainty on information and decision processes in banks. Administrative Science Quarerly, 26: 578-596.
43. Lipshitz, R. (1993). Converging themes in the study of decision making in realistic settings. Decision making in action: Models and methods, 103-137.
44. Lipshitz, R., ve Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision- making analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 149-163.
45. Lipshitz, R., Klein, G. ve Carroll J.S. (2006).Introduction to the special ıssue. Naturalistic decision making and organizational decision making: Exploring the intersections, Organization Studies, 27: 917.
46. MacCrimmon, K.R. (1968). Descriptive and normative implications of the decisionheory postulates. Risk and uncertainty içinde (3-32 ss). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
47. March, J.G. ve Herbert A.S. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
48. McLennan, J. Ve Omodei, M.M. (1996). The role of prepriming in recognition-primed decision making. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(3_suppl), 1059-1069.
49. Militello, L.G., Sushereba, C.E., Branlat, M., Bean, R. ve Finomore, V. (2015). Designing for military pararescue: Naturalistic decision‐making perspective, methods, and frameworks. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(2), 251-272.
50. Mosier, K.L. (2017). Technology and “naturalistic” decision making: Myths and realities. Naturalistic Decision Making and Macrocognition içinde (67-80 ss). CRC Press.
51. Montgomery, H., Lipshitz, R., ve Brehmer, B. (2004). How professionals make decisions. CRC Press.
52. Newell, A., ve Simon, H. (1956). The logic theory machine- complex information processing system. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 61-79.
53. Nutt, P.C. (1976). Models for decision making in organizations and some contextual variables which stipulate optimal use. Academy of Management Review, 1: 84- 98.
54. Orasanu, J., ve Connolly, T. (1993). The reinvention of decision making. G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, ve C. E. Zsambok (Ed.), Decision-making in action: Models and methods içinde (3–20 ss). Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Patterson, E.S., Militello, L.G., Su, G. ve Sarkar, U. (2016). Characterizing a naturalistic decision-making phenomenon: loss of system resilience associated with implementation of new technology. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10(3), 229-243.
56. Paparone, C.R. (2001). US Army decision making: Past, present and future. Military Review, 81(4), 45.
57. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing With Power: Politics and ınfluence in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
58. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
59. Polič, M. (2009). Decision making: Between rationality and reality. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 7(2), 78-89.
60. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Merging paradigms: decision-making, management, and cognitive control. R. Flin, E. Salas, ve L. Martin (Ed.), Decision-making under stress, emerging themes and applications içinde (67–81.ss.). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
61. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., ve Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. NewYork: Wiley.
62. Rotbring, L. (2010). Experience-based decision-making, non-technical skills and general decision-making styles among aviation pilots (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Erişim portal.org/smash/get/diva2:326376/FULLTEXT01.pdf adresi http://www.diva
63. Salas, E. ve Klein, G. (2001). Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. NewYork: Psychology Press.
64. Scott, S.G. ve Bruce, R.A. (1995). Decision-making style: the development and assessment Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. measure. Educational and Psychological
65. Shattuck, L.G. ve Miller, N.L. (2006). Extending naturalistic decision making to complex organizations: a dynamic model of situated cognition. Organization Studies, 27(7), 989-1009.
66. Simon, H.A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological review, 63(2), 129.
67. Simon, H.A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161-176.
68. Simon, H.A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 493-513.
69. Thunholm, P. (2006). A new model for tactical mission planning for the Swedish Armed Forces. Proceedings of the 2006 Command and Control Research and Technology www.dodccrp.org/html4/events_past.html#2006 Symposium içinde. http://
70. Tsang, E.W.K. (2004). Toward a scientific ınquiry into superstitious business decision making. Organization Studies, 25(6), 923-946.
71. Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahvah New Jersey. London.
72. Yaşar, O. ve Sundu, M. (2017). Kaotik ortamlar için karar verme model önerisi:doğal karar verme. 25. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi içinde (453–463.ss.).
73. Yaşar, O. (2016). Davranışsal Karar Verme, Düşünme, Problem Çözme. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
74. Yates, J. F., Veinott, E. S., ve Patalano, A. L. (2003). Hard decisions, bad decisions: On decision quality and decision aiding. S. L. Schneider ve J. Shanteau (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research içinde (13–63.ss.). New York: Cambridge University Press
75. Zsambok, C. E. (1997). Naturalistic decision making, Zsambok, C. E., Klein G. (Ed.), Naturalistic decision making research and improving team decision making içinde, (111-120.ss.). Pschology Press.
76. Zsambok, C.E, Klein, Z.G. (1997) (Ed.), Naturalistic decision-making, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.