PDF

Bu çalışmanın amacı TALIS 2018 Türkiye verileri üzerinden iş doyumu ölçeğinin cinsiyet, çalışma durumu ve meslekte geçirilen süre değişkenlerine göre ölçme değişmezliğinin sağlanıp sağlanmadığını incelemektir. Bu amaçla İş Doyumu ölçeğindeki Çalışma Ortamı, Meslek ve Sınıf Özerkliği gizil değişkenleri için ayrı ayrı çoklu grup doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (ÇGDFA) gerçekleştirilmiş ve kurulan modellerden elde edilen uyum indeksleri incelenmiştir. Ölçme değişmezliği incelemelerinde yalnızca Sınıf Özerkliği için cinsiyet grupları arasında metrik değişmezlik koşulunun sağlanmadığı, diğer tüm durumlar için bu değişmezliğin yerine getirildiği belirlenmiştir. Ölçek değişmezliği Çalışma Ortamı için meslekte geçirilen süreye göre oluşan gruplar arasında, katı değişmezlik ise Meslek için cinsiyet grupları arasında sağlanamamıştır. Ancak ölçek değişmezliği koşulunun sağlanmasının gruplar arasında ortalama karşılaştırmaları yapmaya yeterli olacağı göz önüne alındığında yapılan dokuz karşılaştırmadan yedisinin bu koşulu sağladığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

ölçe değişmezliği, TALIS, çoklu grup doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, iş doyumu

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• André, S., Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Telli, S., Chun, S., Fernández-García, C. M., ... & Safrina, R. (2020). Student perceptions in measuring teaching behavior across six countries: A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis approach to measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 273.
• Ainley, J. & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework. OECD Education Working papers, No. 187'. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Avşaroğlu, S., Deniz, M. E. ve Kahraman, A. (2005). Teknik öğretmenlerde yaşam doyumu iş doyumu ve mesleki tükenmişlik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14, 115-129.
• Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40(1), 33-48.
• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
• Bialosiewicz, S., Murphy, K., & Berry, T. (2013). An introduction to measurement invariance testing: Resource packet for participants. Retrieved from http://comm.eval.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=63758fed-a490-43f2-8862-2de0217a08b8
• Browne,M. W.,&Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136−162), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872-882.
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.
• Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005.
• Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
• Clench-Aas, J., Nes, R. B., Dalgard, O. S., & Aarø, L. E. (2011). Dimensionality and measurement invariance in the Satisfaction with Life Scale in Norway. Quality of Life Research, 20(8), 1307-1317.
• De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and employability in fixed-term contractors, agency workers, and permanent workers: Associations with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(2), 193-205.
• Desa, D. (2014). Evaluating measurement invariance of TALIS 2013 complex scales: Comparison between continuous and categorical multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 103. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Desa, D., Gonzalez, E., & Mirazchiyski, P. (2014). Construction of scales and indices. In J. Belanger, S. Normandeau, & E. Larrakoetxea (Eds.), TALIS 2013 technical report (pp. 145–295). Paris, France: OECD.
• Duffy, M. K., D. C. Ganster, & J. D. Shaw. (1998). Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: The role of tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 950-959.
• Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. & van Praag, B. M. (2006). Insecurity in the labor market–The impact of the type of contract on job satisfaction in Spain and the Netherlands. University of Amsterdam mimeo.
• Friedman, I. A. & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 28-35.
• Gorges, J., Koch, T., Maehler, D. B., & Offerhaus, J. (2017). Same but different? Measurement invariance of the PIAAC motivation-to-learn scale across key socio-demographic groups. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5(1), 13.
• Gülleroğlu, H. D. (2017). PISA 2012 matematik uygulamasına katılan Türk öğrencilerin duyuşsal özeliklerinin cinsiyete göre ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 151-175.
• Hirschfeld, G., & Von Brachel, R. (2014). Improving Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R–A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 19(1), 1-12.
• Hong S., Malik M. L., & Lee M. K. (2003). Testing configural, metric, scalar, and latent mean invariance across genders in sociotropy and autonomy using a non-Western sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 636–654.
• Horn, J. L. & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117-144.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
• Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60, 30-33.
• Jalal, K. C., Ghanizadeh, F., & Akbari, A. O. (2017). Scrutinizing EFL teachers' job satisfaction and stress at work: The intervening roles of gender, teaching experience, and educational level. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 6(1), 3-18.
• Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C., ... & Coffman, D. (2020). Package ‘semTools’.
• Kalay, F., Arslan, H. ve Oflas, S. (2013). Kadrolu ve 4/B sözleşmeli yardımcı sağlık personellerinin iş doyumlarının karşılaştırılması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 111-121.
• Kline, R. B., (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Kim, K. A., & Roth, G. L. (2011). Novice teachers and their acquisition of work-related information. Current issues in Education, 14(1), 1-28.
• Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek teachers. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 354–58.
• Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational pshychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chigago: Rand-McNally.
• Lubke, G. & Muthén, B. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(4), 514-534.
• Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568.
• Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 361-388.
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
• Meng, L., Qiu, C., & Boyd‐Wilson, B. (2019). Measurement invariance of the ICT engagement construct and its association with students’ performance in China and Germany: Evidence from PISA 2015 data. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3233-3251.
• Michel, H. A. (2013). The first five years: Novice teacher beliefs, experiences, and commitment to the profession (Doctoral dissertation, UC San Diego).
• Milfont, T. L. & Fisher, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111-121.
• Millsap, R. E. & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39(3), 479-515.
• Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett, J., Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (Eds.). (1991). Who will teach? Policies that mater. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• O’Connell, A. A., Goldstein, J., Rogers, H. J., & Peng, C.-Y. J. (2008). Multilevel logistic models for dichotomous and ordinal data. In A. A. O’Connell & B. McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of educational data (pp. 199–242). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• OECD. (2005). Proposal for an international survey of teachers. No. EDU/EC/CERI(2005)5 (internal document), Directorate for Education and Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. Paris: TALIS, OECD Publishing.
• Ory, D. T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2010). The impact of nonnormality, sample size and estimation technique on goodness-offit measures in structural equation modeling: Evidence from ten empirical models of travel behavior. Quality & Quantity, 44, 427–445.
• Peters, G. J. Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: Why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. The European Health Psychologist, 16, 56–69.
• Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.
• Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552.
• Revelle, W., & Revelle, M. W. (2015). Package ‘psych’. The comprehensive R archive network.
• Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological methods, 17(3), 354.
• Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: The organization of schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Rosseel, Y., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Merkle, E., ... & Rosseel, M. Y. (2017). Package ‘lavaan’. Retrieved June, 17, 2017.
• Schmith, N. & Kuljanin, G.. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implication. Human Resources Management Review, 18, 210-222
• Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and teacher education, 27(6), 1029-1038.
• Steenkamp, J. B. E. & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90.
• Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180.
• Suh, Y. (2015). The performance of maximum likelihood and weighted least square mean and variance adjusted estimators in testing differential item functioning with nonnormal trait distributions. Structural Equation Modeling, 22(4), 568–80.
• Şahin, İ. (2013). Öğretmenlerin iş doyumu düzeyleri. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 142-167.
• Taşdan, M. ve Tiryaki, E. (2010). Özel ve devlet ilköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin iş doyumu düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(147), 54-70.
• TEDMEM. (2019). TALIS 2018 sonuçları ve Türkiye üzerine değerlendirmeler (TEDMEM Analiz Dizisi 6). Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları.
• Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.
• Uyar, Ş. ve Doğan, N. (2011). PISA 2009 Türkiye örnekleminde öğrenme stratejileri modelinin farklı gruplarda ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2014(3), 30-43.
• Watt, H. M. & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 408-428.
• Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.
• Widaman, K. F. & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in substance use domain. The Science of Prevention: Methodological Advances from Alcohol and Substance Abuse Research, 281-324.
• Yandı, A., Köse, İ. A., & Uysal, Ö. (2017). Farklı yöntemlerle ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi: PISA 2012 Örneği. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 243-253.
• Zakariya, Y. F. (2020). Investigating some construct validity threats to TALIS 2018 teacher job satisfaction scale: Implications for social science researchers and practitioners. Social Sciences, 9(4), Article 38.
• Zembylas, M. & Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 357-374.
• Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s alpha, Revelle’s beta, McDonald’s omega: Their relations with each and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133.