Spontaneous Disaster Volunteer Selection Scale: Validity and Reliability Assessment
Abstract
Although disaster management practices have advanced considerably in recent years, citizens who are the first to arrive at the disaster scene—due to geographical proximity and a strong motivation to help—continue to play critical roles in emergency response processes. Contemporary disaster management has evolved into a multi-actor framework involving professional response teams, volunteers, civil society organizations, and active citizens. Voluntary engagement has become an indispensable complement to public response capacity, particularly in sudden-onset and large-scale disasters. Nevertheless, the structural criteria governing volunteer participation in disaster response in many countries remain ambiguous. For effective integration, it is essential to establish systematic components such as selection protocols, training standards, role definitions, and responsibility frameworks. In this context, the present study aims to contribute to the development of an effective volunteer selection approach in disaster settings in Türkiye by evaluating the Turkish adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Spontaneous Volunteer Selection Scale developed by Martínez et al. (2021). The target population consisted of students at Erzurum Technical University, and a non-probability convenience sampling method was employed. To minimize sampling error, the sample size was determined to be 417 participants. The instrument was distributed online and in person during the data collection phase, and responses were collected in both digital and printed formats. The original scale was translated into Turkish following established linguistic and cultural validation procedures and subsequently pilot-tested. To assess construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was initially conducted, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the resulting factor structure. Internal consistency reliability was examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. EFA results revealed that five subdimensions explained 55.23% of the total variance. The CFA confirmed acceptable model fit indices for the 24-item, 5-factor structure (χ²/df = 2.229; CFI = 0.91; IFI = 0.91; GFI = 0.90; AGFI = 0.87; RMSEA = 0.054). The overall internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = 0.88). Based on the findings, the Turkish version of the scale was confirmed to be a valid and reliable instrument comprising five dimensions—Knowledge, Skills/Capabilities, Behavior, Motivation, and Social Desirability—across 24 items.
Keywords
Disaster Management , Validity , Reliability , Risk Management , Spontaneous Voluntary.
Kaynakça
- Adams, L. & Canclini, S. (2008) Disaster Readiness: A Community - University Partnership. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 13(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol13No03PPT04.
- Aktürk, Z. & Acemoglu, H. (2012) Tıbbi araştırmalarda güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, 39 (2), 316-319. https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2012.02.0150.
- Albris, K. & Lauta, K. C. (2021) Causing wrong while doing good: On the question of liability for volunteers in emergencies. Environmental Hazards, 20(1), 78-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1651687.
- Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), (2017). Communities Responding to Disasters: Planning for Spontaneous Volunteers, Australia.
- Ayyıldız, H. & Cengiz, E. (2006). Pazarlama modellerinin testinde kullanılabilecek yapısal eşitlik modeli (YEM) üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 63-84. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sduiibfd/issue/20838/223311.
- Bachner, G., Seebauer, S., Pfurtscheller, C. & Brucker, A. (2016). Assessing the benefits of organized voluntary emergency services: Concepts and evidence from flood protection in Austria. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(3), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2015-0203.
- Berrebi, C., Karlinsky, A. & Yonah, H. (2021). Individual and community behavioral responses to natural disasters. Natural hazards, 105, 1541-1569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04365-2.
- Bonett, D. G. & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1960.
- Brown, T. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.), New York: The Guilford Press.
- Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D. & Baharum, N. A. (2018) A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences, 25(6), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9.