The Sustainable Scale of Earthquake Awareness, Development, Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The study group of this research, which is planned to develop the Sustainable Scale of Earthquake Awareness, consists of the students studying at Duzce University in the academic year 2018-2019. 276 volunteer individuals (213 females, 63 males) participated to the research group determined by random sampling method. For confirmatory factor analysis, 434 female and 129 male volunteer students participated. 839 students, 647 of them were females (77,12%) and 192 of them were males (22,88%), supported the study. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis which is completed after testing the suitability of the data for analysis, the scale was constituted of three sub-factors consisting of 22 items. The factors that make up the scale explain 46,393% of the variance. The sub-factors of the scale were named based on the knowledge about the earthquake. The suitability of the obtained model was 0.072 for RMSEA; 0.90 for NFI, 0,89 for GFI, 0.063 for RMR and 0.86 for AGFI. As a result of the reliability analysis, the internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach alpha) of the scale was determined as 0.884. It is thought that this developed scale will provide support as a tool for educational purposes. It is recommended to carry out different researches that can help to investigate the awareness level about the earthquake with different variables.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• Earthquake Awareness
• Sustainable Earthquake Awareness
• Disaster

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy, B. & Sözen, E. (2014). Evaluation of the opinions of high school students on earthquake training delivered ın geography course wıth different variants (Example Of Düzce Province). Usak Üniversity Journal of Science, 7(1), 279-297.
2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and good- ness-of-nt indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychametrika, 49, 155-173.
3. Arıkan, R. (2004). Research techniques ve report preparing. Ankara: Asil Publishing.
4. Atalay, İ. (1987). Introduction to geomorphology of Turkey. İzmir: Ege Uni. Faculty Of Letters Publish No:9.
5. Atalay, İ. (2007). General Geography. Beta Printing. İzmir.
6. Aydın, F. (2010). Attitudes of Primary School students towards earthquake. Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(3),801-817.
7. Bozkurt, V. (1999). Earthquake and society. İstanbul: Alfa Printing Broadcasting Distribution. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Manual of data analysis for social sciences (7. press.). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
8. Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7-12.

9. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
10. Cross, J. A. (1997). Natural hazards and disaster ınformation on the ınternet, Journal of Geography, 96(6), 307-314, DOI: 10.1080/00221349708978812.
11. Cross, J. A. (2000). Hazards courses in North American geography programs. Environmental Hazards, 2(2) 77-86. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Multivariate for social sciences SPSS and LİSREL applications (2. press). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
12. Demirci, A. & Yıldırım, S. (2015). Evaluation of earthquake awareness of secondary school students in Istanbul. National Education. 45(207), 89-117.
13. Demirkaya, H. (2007a). Examinig The earthquake attitudes of 5th, 6th, 7th. Grade primary school students according to various variables. Turkish Journal of Socioal Research. 11(3),37-49.
14. Demirkaya, H. (2007b). Primary school students’ understanding of earthquake and their perspectives towards earthquake. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Faculty of Education. 17(4), 68-76.
15. DHA, (1995). The great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake in Japan. Department of Humantarion Affairs (UN), 95 (141), 13-14.
16. Erdoğan, H. (2007). Teaching natural disasters subject in secondary education geography lessons using geography information system implementation (arcgis). Institute Of Sciences Education, Geography Science Unpublished postgraduate Thesis. Marmara Uni. Institute of Educational Sciences.
17. Ergünay, O. (1996). What is disaster management? How it should be? In the light of Erzincan and Dinar earthquakes, Turkey's quest for solutions to earthquake problems. TUBITAK Earthquake Symposium Papers Book. (Compiled Tuğrul TANKUT), 263-272, Ankara.
18. Erinç, S. (2000). Geomorphology I. İstanbul: Der Publishing.
19. Erkan, S. (2010). A comparative study on the behavioral/emotional problems of preschool children with and without experience of earthquakes. Pamukkale University Journal of Faculty of Education, 28 (2), 55-66.
20. Erkuş, A. (2003). Articles on psychometry. Ankara: Turkish Psychologists Association Publications.
21. Fuhrmann, S., Stone, L. D., Casey, M.C., Curtis, M.D., Doyle, A.L., Earle, B.D., Jones, D.D., Rodriguez, P. & Schermerhorn, S.M. (2008). Teaching disaster preparedness in geographic education, Journal of Geography, 107(3), 112-120, DOI: 10.1080/00221340802458482.
22. Genç, M. (2015). The project-based learning approach in environmental education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. 24 (2), 105–117, doi:10.1080/10382046.2014.993169
23. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Güngördü, E. (2010) Earth Sciences. Ankara. Gazi Bookstore.
25. Hooper D, Coughlan J, & Mullen M (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6, 53–60.
26. Ilgar, R. (2016). General physical geography (Earth Sciences). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
27. İzbırak, R. (1991). Earth Sciences knowledges. İstanbul: Ministry of Education Publishing.
28. Johnston, D., Tarrant, R., Tıpler, K., Coomer, M., Pedersen, S. & Garsıde, R. (2011). Preparing schools for future earthquakes in New Zealand: lessons form an evaluation of a Wellington school exercise. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(1), 24-30.
29. Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
30. Kanat, M. H.(ed.) (2016) Turkey Geography and Geopolitics. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
31. Kaptan, S. (1983). Scientific research techniques and statistical methods. Ankara: Tekışık Printing Press.
32. Karancı, A.N., Akşit B. & Sucuoğlu H. (1996). Psychosocial dimensions of disaster management at Dinar. Erzincan and Dinar in the light of earthquakes The search for solutions to the problems of Turkey's earthquake. (TUBITAK Earthquake Symposium Proceedings Book. pp:273-283, Ankara.
33. Karasar, N. (2005). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
34. Kasapoğlu, A. & Ecevit, M. (2001). Sociological research of the earthquake. Ankara: Sociology Association Publications, Issue:8.
35. Kaya, B., & Aladağ, C. (2017). Determining the cognitive structures of geography teacher candidates on “Earthquake”. International Education Studies, 10(1), 122-136
36. Kayalı, H. (2018). A research on the attıtude of eight grade students towards earthquake. Educational Research and Reviews,13(11), 399-405.
37. Kayış, A. (2016) Reliability Analysis, Editor: Şeref Kalaycı, Spss Applied Multivariate Statistical Techniques, 7th press. Publishing, Ankara, pp:401-419.
38. Kayri, M. & Gunuç S. (2009). The adaptation of internet addiction scale into Turkısh: The study of validity and reliabılıty. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 42 (1), 157-175.
39. Kerlinger, F. N. & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Harcourt College Publishers. Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. & Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for ıntermediate statistics, use and ınterpretation. 2nd Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah.
40. Lutgens, F. K., Tarbuck, E. J., & Tasa, D. (2013). Essentials of geology. Translation Editor: Cahit Helvecı, Ankara: Nobel Academic Publishing.
41. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
42. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basic of structual equation modeling. California: Sage.
43. Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. New York: Sage
44. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). California: Sage Publishing.
45. Morgan, D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to healt research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.
46. Munich, Re. (2010). Topics: Natural catastrophes, annual rewiew of natural catastrophes 2009. Munchen: Munich Re Insurance Company.
47. Ohnishi, K. & Mitsuhashi, H. (2013). Geography education challenges regarding disaster mitigation in Japan. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 3(3), 230-240.
48. Öcal, A. (2005). The evaluation of earthquake education in the elementary school social studies courses. Gazi University. Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 25(1), 169-184.
49. Özdemir, Ü., Ertürk, M., Güner, İ., & Koca, M. K. (2001). The importance of prevention of earthquake and earthquake damages in primary education. Eastern Geographical Review. 7(5), 109-131.
50. Öztürk, M. K. (2013). A research on earthquake experıences of prımary school teacher candıdates. Hacettepe University Journal of Education. 28(1), 308-319.
51. Panic, M. , Majkic, J. K. & Milijanovic, D. (2013). Importance of natural disaster education case study of the earthquake near the City of Kraljevo. Journal of the Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" SASA, 63(1), (75-88).
52. Pelling, M., Özerdem A. & Barakat S. (2002). The macro-economic impact of disaster. Progress in Devolopment Studies. 2(4), 283-305.
53. Ross, K.E.K. & Shuell T.J. (1993). Children’s beliefs about earthquakes. Science Education, 77(2), 191-205.
54. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Keith, N., Moosbrugger, H., & Hodapp, V. (2004). Decomposing person and occasion-spe- cific effects: An extension of latent state-trait theory to hierar- chical LST models. Psychological Methods, 9, 198-219.
55. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of sig- nificance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 8 (2), 23–74. Sert, E. (2002). The influence level of the earthquake on the motive and succes and feulure of the primary school students (Unpublished postgraduate Thesis. Sakarya Uni. Institute of Sociall Sciences).
56. Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation modelling; basic consepts and applications. Turkish Psychology Articles, 3 (6), 49-74.
57. Şahin, C., Doğanay H. & Özcan, N. A. (2004). Turkey Geography (Physical, Human and Geopolitics). Ankara: Gündüz Education and Publishing.
58. Şahin, C., & Sipahioğlu, Ş. (2007). Natural Disasters and Turkey. Ankara: Gündüz Education and Publishing.
59. Şencan, H. (2005). Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
60. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling. An kara: Ekinoks Publishing.
61. Tabachnick, G. B., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). USA: Allyon and Bacon Press.
62. Tanaka, K. (2005). The impact of disaster education on public preparation and mitigation for Earthquakes: a cross-country comparison between Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Applied Geography 25, 201-225.
63. Taş, G. (2003). The evaluation of teaching in secondary schools in Turkey subject to natural disasters. (Earthquakes, mass movements, volcanoes, evaluation of frost). Unpublished postgraduate Thesis. Gazi Uni. Institute of Educational Sciences.
64. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Measurement of attitudes and Data analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
65. Thomas, D.S.K., Mitchell, J.T., Scott, M.S. & Cutter, S.L. (1999). Developing a digital atlas of environmental risks and hazards, Journal of Geography, 98(5), 201-207, DOI: 10.1080/00221349908978886.
66. Tsai, C-C. (2001). Ideas about earthquakes after experiencing a natural disaster ın taiwan: an analysis of students’ worldviews. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (10), 1007-1016.
67. TUBITAK (2001). After 17 August 1999 earthquake geological survey of alternative settlement areas, Ankara: Tubitak Press.
68. UNCHS (2009). Global report on human settlements/ Planning Sustainable cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). Malta: Gutenberg Press.
69. Vance, K., Miller, K., & Hand, B. (1995). Two constructivist approaches to teaching ecology at the middle school level. The American Biology Teacher, 57(4), 244-249.
70. Yıldız, M. (2000). Teachers in primary schools before and after the earthquake with learning and teaching achievements changes that may occur after earthquakes. Unpublished postgraduate Thesis. Marmara Uni. Institute of Educational Sciences.