The Group Climate Questionnaire: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Turkish version

Yıl 2018, , 1 - 16, 11.01.2018

F. İşıl Bilican , Anne Mceneaney

https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.306877

Cited By: 2

Öz

The Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ) has been
the most frequently used instrument in the group psychotherapy research. The
GCQ measures group members’ perceptions of the group’s therapeutic environment.
This study translated and adapted the GCQ into Turkish. Fifty psychotherapists
joined a four­day training on group psychotherapy. Factor structure was
analyzed by employing Principal Component and Confirmatory Factor Analyses.
Psychometric properties including reliability, validity, and factor structure
of the GCQ indicated a three factor structure including Engagement, Conflict,
and Avoidance. The data fit the model best without including Item 8 under the
Engagement subscale. Cronbach alpha levels were .78 (Conflict), .73
(Engagement), and .59 (Avoidance). Construct validity was established using the
Multidimensional Relationship Questionnaire. 
Turkish adaptation of the GCQ was shown to be valid and reliable. The
GCQ-Turkish had three factors, similar to the original version. Psychometric
properties were discussed with comparison to the previous studies which
utilized the GCQ.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Group Climate Questionnaire, Turkish, engagement, avoidance, conflict, group psychotherapy, reliability

THE GROUP CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE: ADAPTATION AND PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE TURKISH VERSION

Öz

Grup Ortamı Anketi (GCQ) grup psikoterapisi araştırmalarında en çok kullanılan ankettir. GCQ, grup üyelerinin grubun terapötik ortamı hakkındaki algılarını ölçer. GCQ’nun Yükümlülük alma, Çatışma ve Kaçınma’dan oluşan üç alt ölçeği bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, GCQ’yu Türkçeye çevirmiş ve adaptasyonunu yapmıştır. Elli psikoterapist, dört günlük grup psikoterapisi eğitimine katılmıştır. Dördüncü günün sonunda GCQ ve Çok Boyutlu İlişki Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonu uygulanmıştır. GCQ ve GCQ’nun faktör yapısı Temel Bileşenler Analiz yöntemiyle eksen döndürme tekniklerinden varimaks tekniği ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Geçerlik, güvenirlik, ve GCQ’nun faktör yapısı incelemeleri GCQ’nün Yükümlülük alma, Çatışma ve Kaçınma alt faktörlerinden oluştuğunu göstermiştir. Madde 8 anketten çıkarıldığında veriler modele en iyi şekilde uymaktadır. Cronbach alpha seviyeleri şu şekildedir: .78 (Çatışma), .73 (Yükümlülük alma) ve .59 (Kaçınma). Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği Çok Boyutlu İlişki Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonu ile korelasyonları hesaplanarak incelenmiştir. GCQ’nun Türkçe adaptasyonunun (GCQ-T) geçerliği ve güvenilirliği gösterilmiştir. GCQ-T’nin faktör yapısı ölçeğin orijinalinin faktör yapısına benzemektedir.  Ölçeğin psikometrik özellikleri önceki çalışmaların bulgularıyla karşılaştırılarak tartışılmıştır.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Grup psikoterapisi, ölçek, yükümlülük alma, kaçınma, çatışma, geçerlik

Kaynakça

• References
• Arrindell, W. A., & Van Der Ende. J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of the observations-to-variables ratio in factor and components analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 165 - 178.
• Bakali, J. V., Wilberg, T., Klungsoyr, O., & Lorentzen, S. (2013). Development of group climate in short­ and long­term psychodynamic group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 63, 367-­393. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for theprocess of cross­cultural adaptation of self­report measures. Spine, 25, 3186­3191.
• Bonsaksen, T., Borge, F. M., & Hoffart, A. (2013). Group climate as a predictor of short­ andlong­term outcome in group therapy for social phobia. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 63, 395-­417.
• Bonsaksen, T., Lerdal, A., Borge, F. M., Sexton, H., & Hoffart, A. (2011). Group climate development in cognitive and interpersonal group therapy for social phobia. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 32-48.
• Brenjo, T. (2012). Patient characteristics as predictors of group climate in cognitive-behavioral group therapy (Graduate thesis, Institute of Psychology, NTNU). Retrieved from http://ntnu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A565279&dswid=6142.
• Buyuksahin, A. (2005). The Multidimensional Relationship Questionnaire: A Study of Reliability and Validity. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 16, 97­-105. Castonguay, L.G., Pincus, A.L., Hines III, C.E., & Agras, W.S. (1998). The role of emotion ingroup cognitive­behavioral therapy for binge eating disorder: When things have to feel worse before they get better. Psychotherapy Research, 8, 225­-238. Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler icin Cok Degiskenli Istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları (Multivariate Statistics for Social Sciences: SPSS and LISREL Applications). Ankara: Pegem.
• Crowe, T. P., & Grenyer, B. F. S. (2008). Is therapist alliance or whole group cohesion more influential in group psychotherapy outcomes? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,15, 239­-246.
• Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J.T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20, 33-­57.
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows step by step. Boston: Pearson.
• Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-­98. Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique.Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3, 76-­83. Hurley, J. R., & Brooks, L. A. (1987). Brief reports groups climate’s principal dimension:Affiliation. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 37, 441-­448.
• Hurley, J. R., & Brooks, L. A. (1988). Primacy of affiliativeness in ratings of group climate. Psychological Reports, 62, 123–133. Johnson, J. E. (2013). Beware of Storming: Research Implications for Interpreting Group Climate Questionnaire Scores Over Time. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 63, 433-­446.
• Johnson, J. E., Burlingame, G. M., Olsen, J., Davies, D. R., & Gleave, R. L. (2005). Group climate, cohesion, alliance, and empathy in group psychotherapy: Multilevel structural equation models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 310–321.
• Johnson, J. E., Burlingame, G. M., Strauss, B., & Bormann, B. (2008). Die therapeutischen beziehungen in der gruppenpsychotherapie [The therapeutic relationship in group psychotherapy]. Gruppenpsy­ chotherapie und Gruppendynamik, 44, 52–89.
• Johnson, J. E., Pulsipher, D., Ferrin, S. L., Burlingame, G. M., Davies, D. R., & Gleave, R. (2006). Measuring group processes: A comparison of the GCQ and CCI. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 136-­145.
• Kivlighan, D. M., & Goldfine, D. C. (1991). Endorsement of therapeutic factors as a function of stage of group development and participant interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 150-­158.
• Kivlighan, D. M., & Lilly, R. L. (1997). Developmental changes in group climate as they relate to therapeutic gain. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 208-­ 221.
• Kivlighan, D. M., & Tarrant, J. M. (2001). Does group climate mediate the group leadership­ group member outcome relationship? A test of Yalom’s hypotheses about leadership priorities. Group Dynamics, 5, 220­-234.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York:Guilford Press.
• Landers, R.N. (2015). Computing intraclass correlations (ICC) as estimates of interrater reliability in SPSS. The Winnower 2:e143518.81744. DOI: 10.15200/winn.143518.81744
• MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H., M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1,130­149.
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 611-637.
• MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of a group climate measure. In R. R. Dies, & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice (pp.159­170). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
• MacKenzie, K.R., Dies, R.R., Coché, E., Rutan, J.S., & Stone, W.N. (1987). An analysis of AGPA Institute groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 37, 55-­74.
• MacKenzie, K. R. & Livesley, W. J. (1983). A developmental model for brief group therapy. In R. R. Dies, & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice (pp.101­116). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
• Mbelwa, L. (2015). Factors influencing the use of accounting information in Tanzanian local government authorities: An institutional theory approach. In K. Jayasinghe , N. D. Nath, & R. Othman (ed.) The Public Sector Accounting, Accountability and Auditing in Emerging Economies, (Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, Volume 15, pp. 143-177) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Nackers, L. M., Dubyak, P. J., Lu, X., Anton, S. D., Dutton, G. R., & Perri, M. G. (2015). Group dynamics are associated with weight loss in the behavioral treatment of obesity. Obesity, 23, 1563–1569. doi:10.1002/oby.21148.
• Ozdamar, K. (2016). Olcek ve Test Gelistirme Yapisal Esitlik Modellemesi (Test Development Structural Equation Modeling). Eskisehir: Nisan.
• Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory Factor Analysis in Behavior Genetics Research: Factor Recovery with Small Sample Sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32, 153-161.
• Ryum, T., Hagen, R., Nordahl, H. M., Vogel, P. A., & Stiles, T. C. (2009). Perceived group climate as a predictor of long­term outcome in a randomized controlled trial of cognitive­behavioral group therapy for patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 497-­510. Sivo, S. A., Fan, X. T., Witta, E .L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for ‘optimal’ cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 267-­289.
• Snell, W. E., Jr., Schicke, M., & Arbeiter, T. (2002). Chapter 4: The Multidimensional Relationship Questionnaire: Psychological Dispositions Associated with Intimate Relations. In W. E. Snell, Jr. (Ed.), New directions in the psychology of intimate relations: Research and theory. Cape Girardeau, MO: Snell Publications.
• Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tasca, G. A., Flynn, C., & Bissada, H. (2002). Comparison of group climate in an eating disorders partial hospital group and a psychiatric partial hospital group. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 52, 409­-417.
• Tschuschke, V., & Greene, L. R. (2002). Group therapists, training: What predicts learning? International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 52, 463-­482.
• Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84­-136.
• Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 913–934.
• Wothke, W. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural equation modeling. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 256­293). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.