Ergenler İçin Türkçe Aile Varlık Düzeyi Ölçeği’nin Psikometrik Doğrulanması: Bir Madde Tepki Kuramı Yaklaşımı

Öz

Aile Varlık Düzeyi Ölçeği (FAS), ergen sağlığı araştırmalarında yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır; ancak ölçeğin en son revizyonu, modern ölçme yöntemleri kullanılarak Türk ergenler üzerinde henüz incelenmemiştir. Bu çalışmada, 397 Türk ergen (%%48.6 kız; yaş ortalaması = 13.34 yıl, SS = 1.31) üzerinde 14 aday varlık göstergesinden oluşan bir madde havuzu değerlendirilmiş ve kısa, tek boyutlu bir varlık düzeyi ölçeği elde edilmiştir. Maddeler; maddeleri onaylama (seçilme) oranları, madde tepki kuramı ayırt edicilik indeksleri ve yerel bağımlılık temelinde ayıklanmıştır. Dört gösterge (çamaşır makinesi, kendine ait yatak, bulaşık makinesi ve evde internet) katılımcıların %%90'ından fazlası tarafından onaylanmış ve çok az bilgi taşımıştır; araba sahipliği ise aileleri ayırt etmede yetersiz kalmıştır. Geriye kalan altı maddelik form, gürbüz en küçük kareler yöntemiyle kestirilen tek faktörlü bir modele iyi uyum göstermiştir (ölçeklendirilmiş CFI = .979, TLI = .965, RMSEA = .026, SRMR = .056). Derecelendirilmiş tepki modeli, test bilgi fonksiyonunun varlık düzeyinin orta ve üst sınırlarında yoğunlaştığını, alt sınırında ise düşük olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçek cinsiyete göre eş değer şekilde işlev görmüş, ancak iki madde yaş grupları arasında değişen madde fonksiyonu (DIF) sergilemiştir. İç tutarlılık, önceki FAS araştırmalarıyla tutarlı olacak şekilde mütevazı düzeydedir (ordinal alfa = .63). Bulgular, Türk ergenler için kullanışlı ve kısa bir varlık düzeyi ölçüm aracını desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• aile varlık düzeyi ölçeği
• sosyoekonomik düzey
• ergenler
• madde tepki kuramı
• ölçek uyarlama

Psychometric Validation of a Turkish Family Affluence Scale for Adolescents: An Item Response Theory Approach

Öz

The Family Affluence Scale is widely used in adolescent health research, yet its most recent revision has not been examined in Turkish adolescents using modern measurement methods. This study evaluated a pool of 14 candidate affluence indicators in 397 Turkish adolescents (48.6% female; mean age 13.34 years, SD = 1.31) and derived a short unidimensional affluence scale. Items were screened on the basis of endorsement rates, item response theory discrimination, and local dependence. Four indicators (washing machine, own bed, dishwasher, and home Internet) were endorsed by more than 90% of respondents and carried little information, and car ownership did not discriminate among families. A six-item form was retained and showed good fit to a single-factor model estimated with robust weighted least squares, scaled CFI = .979, TLI = .965, RMSEA = .026, SRMR = .056. A graded response model indicated that test information was concentrated at the middle and upper range of affluence and was low at the lower range. The scale functioned equivalently across gender, although two items showed differential functioning across age groups. Internal consistency was modest (ordinal alpha = .63), consistent with prior FAS research. The findings support a usable short affluence measure for Turkish adolescents.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• family affluence scale
• socioeconomic status
• adolescents
• item response theory
• scale adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Botelho Guedes, F., Cerqueira, A., Gaspar, S., Gaspar, T., Moreno, C., & Gaspar de Matos, M. (2022). Family Environment and Portuguese Adolescents: Impact on Quality of Life and Well-Being. Children, 9(2), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9020200
2. Boyce, W., & Dallago, L. (2004). Socioeconomic inequalities. In C. Currie, C. Roberts, A. Morgan, R. Smith, W. Settertobulte, O. Samdal, & V. B. Rasmussen (Eds.), Young people's health in context. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2001/2002 survey (pp. 13-25). World Health Organization
3. Boyce, W., Torsheim, T., Currie, C., & Zambon, A. (2006). The family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: Validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Social Indicators Research, 78(3), 473-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-1607-6
4. Brisson, R., Furstova, J., Sokolová, L., Eriksson, C., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Badura, P. (2024). Trends in the link between perceived social support and life satisfaction in adolescents (2013/14–2021/22): A cross-national study. International Journal of Public Health, 69, 1607283. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2024.1607283
5. Brown, J. D., Dutton, K. A., & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 15(5), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930126063
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
7. Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v039.i08
8. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
10. Çuhadaroğlu, F. (1989). Üniversite gençliğinde kimlik bocalamaları. Üniversite Genliğinde Uyum Sorunları Sempozyumu Bilimsel Çalışmaları. Ankara: Bilkent Üniversitesi Psikolojik Danışma ve Araştırma Merkezi.
11. Currie, C. E., Elton, R. A., Todd, J., & Platt, S. (1997). Indicators of socioeconomic status for adolescents: The WHO Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey. Health Education Research, 12(3), 385-397. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/12.3.385
12. Currie, C., Molcho, M., Boyce, W., Holstein, B., Torsheim, T., & Richter, M. (2008). Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Social Science & Medicine, 66(6), 1429-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.024
13. Dittmar, H., & Hurst, M. (2017). The impact of a materialistic value orientation on well-being. In Subjective well-being and life satisfaction (pp. 311-336). Routledge.
14. Edet, B., Essien, E., Eleazu, F., Abang, R., Ochijele, E., & Daniel, F. (2023). The Relative Role of Family Affluence and Social Support on Depression and Self-Esteem among Adolescents in Nigeria: a Cross-Sectional Study. Acta Medica Academica, 52(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.421
15. Eker, D., Arkar, H., & Yaldız, H. (2001). Factorial structure, validity, and reliability of revised form of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 12(1), 17–25.
16. Hobza, V., Hamrik, Z., Bucksch, J., & De Clercq, B. (2017). The family affluence scale as an indicator for socioeconomic status: validation on regional income differences in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1540. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121540
17. 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), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
18. Jaworska, N., & MacQueen, G. (2015). Adolescence as a unique developmental period. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 40(5), 291–293. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.150268
19. Kırcı, N. Y., Çağlar, E., Karabulut, E., & Karaca, A. (2024). Aile Varlık Düzeyi Ölçeği II'nin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(2), 479-494. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1282656
20. Liu, Y., Wang, M., Villberg, J., Torsheim, T., Tynjälä, J., Lv, Y., & Kannas, L. (2012). Reliability and validity of Family Affluence Scale (FAS II) among adolescents in Beijing, China. Child Indicators Research, 5(2), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9131-5
21. MaleckiC. K. & DemaryM. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychol. Sch.39, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2018.10.004
22. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
23. Präg, P., Mills, M. C., & Wittek, R. (2016). Subjective socioeconomic status and health in cross-national comparison. Social Science & Medicine, 149, 84-92.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.044
24. Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7
25. Reiss, F. (2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026
26. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures Package, 61(52), 18.
27. Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85-100). Springer.
28. Schnohr, C. W., Makransky, G., Kreiner, S., Torsheim, T., Hofmann, F., De Clercq, B., Elgar, F., & Currie, C. (2013). Item response drift in the family affluence scale: A study on three consecutive surveys of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey. Measurement, 46(9), 3119-3126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.016
29. Schütz, R., Reiss, F., Moor, I. et al. (2025). Lonely children and adolescents are less healthy and report less social support: A study on the effect of loneliness on mental health and the moderating role of social support. BMC Public Health 25, 2172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23247-5
30. Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Rea, J. (2017). How poverty affects people’s decision-making processes. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
31. Torsheim, T., Cavallo, F., Levin, K. A., Schnohr, C., Mazur, J., Niclasen, B., & Currie, C. (2016). Psychometric validation of the revised family affluence scale: A latent variable approach. Child Indicators Research, 9(3), 771-784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9339-x
32. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2025). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri (BT) kullanım araştırması, 2025 [Basın bülteni]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/
33. Wardle, J., Robb, K., & Johnson, F. (2002). Assessing socioeconomic status in adolescents: The validity of a home affluence scale. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(8), 595-599. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.8.595
34. Wiedermann, C. J., Barbieri, V., Reismann, H., Piccoliori, G., Engl, A., & Hager von Strobele-Prainsack, D. (2026). Perceived Financial Strain and Adolescent Mental Health: Evidence from a Population-Based Study in South Tyrol, Italy. Children, 13(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/children13010121
35. Zaborskis, A., Kavaliauskienė, A., Dimitrova, E., & Eriksson, C. (2022). Pathways of Adolescent Life Satisfaction Association with Family Support, Structure and Affluence: A Cross-National Comparative Analysis. Medicina, 58(7), 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58070970
36. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2