Developing Quality of Life Scale, Making Its Validity and Reliability for Turkish Population

Öz

The purpose of this study is to develop the Quality of Life Scale (QoLS) and to make its validity and reliability for the Turkish population. The research is a descriptive research and all individuals with or without physical health constitute the main body of the research. Research data is limited to individuals on social media as it collected by electronic questionnaires between 1th October and 15th December 2019. The random sampling method was used in this study and the sample group consisted of 689 individuals (Xage = 39.80 ± 1.67). In this study, electronic questionnaire form was used as data collection tool. E-forms were distributed to individuals who have replied to spread all across Turkey via social media and data across all of the survey were evaluated with consistency. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) applied to the data set consisting of 86 items in total, 14 items with variance values less than 0.5 and factoring factors other than the expected factor removed from the data set, and EFA reapplied to the remaining 72 items and KMO (0.927) and the results of the Bartlett's sphericity tests found as (X2 = 33792.063, SD = 2556, p = 0.000). As the result of its analysis was suitable for the applicability of EFA, a total of 72 items and 17 factors were obtained as a result of EFA. Item-factor correlation was made to the factors obtained as a result of factor analysis. In order to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of the sub-dimensions formed as a result of EFA, and the Pearson correlation coefficients to look at the relationship between the factors of the scale obtained, the results were questioned at the significance level of 0.01 and 0.05. Varimax rotation method was used in the study. Factors obtained as a result of EFA was named as; Family Relationship, Perceived Income Level, Physical Health, Work/School Life, Feeling Safe, Social Pressure, Time Allocation, Neighborhood Relation, Satisfaction with Living Environment, Satisfaction with Social Environment, Perceived Environmental Safety, Finding The Home Sufficient, Being Volunteer, Spiritual Life, Satisfaction with Education, Having Tools/Equipment and Well-Being. According to the results of the research, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the QoLS was found to be 0.957 and the variance explained by the scale as 72.832%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis also applied to the data set and statistically sufficient fit results obtained in all fit indices. Considering the aforementioned findings and results, it is possible to say that the developed QoLS is valid, reliable and sufficient for the Turkish population.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reliability-Validity
• Quality of Life
• Recreation

Kaynakça

1. Ardahan, F. (2004). Küçük ve Orta Boy İşletmeciler için Zaman Yönetimi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Yayınları, Yayın No:84, Antalya.
2. Ardahan, F. (2012). Sosyal Sermaye Ölçeği Geçerlilik, Güvenirlilik Çalışması. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2): 773-789.
3. Ardahan, F. (2014a). Sosyal Sermaye, Yaşam Doyumu ve Akademik Başarı İlişkisi: Akdeniz Üniversitesi, BESYO Örneği. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1): 1212-1226.
4. Ardahan, F. (2014b). Bireylerin Sosyal Sermaye Profili: Antalya Örneği. ASOS Journal, Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(8): 38-56. dx.doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.435.
5. Ardahan, F. (2016) Developing and doing validity and reliability of the motivational factors scale for being volunteer in AKUT. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 1755-1769. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3605.
6. Ardahan, f. (2018). How Effect Active Participation the Life Satisfaction of Individuals. 6th International Academic Conference on Social Sciences. 27-28th July 2018 Prague/ Czech Republic.
7. Ardahan, F., Genç, S. Uludağ, A.H. (2015).Tedavisi Tamamlanmış Meme Kanserli Kadınlarda Düzenli Fiziksel Aktivitenin Hastanın Yaşam Doyumuna ve Umut Düzeyine Etkisi. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 7(2): 41-47.
8. Ardahan, F., Turgut, T. and Kaplan Kalkan, A. (2016). Her Yönüyle Rekreasyon (ing: All About Recreation) Editor: Faik Ardahan. Detay Yayıncılık (Detay Press). Ankara/Turkey.

9. Aydıner Boylu, A. ve Paçacıoğlu, B. (2016). Yaşam Kalitesi ve Göstergeleri. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi. 8(15):137-150.
10. Boyer, R. ve Savageau, D. (1981). Plaees Rated Almanae. Rand Mc Nelly, Chicago.
11. Campbell A., P.E. Converse and W.L. Rodgers; The Quality of American Life – Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions, 1976, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12. Cılga, İ. (1994). Gençlik ve yaşam niteliği. Gençlik ve Spor Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara.
13. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
14. Demiray, G. (2019). Özel Gereksinimli Çocuğu Olan Ailelerde Yaşam Kalitesi, Umutsuzluk ve Yılmazlık Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışma Anabilim Dalı, Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışmanlık Yüksek Lisans Programı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
15. Deniz Öz, N. ve Ardahan, F. (2019). Köyde Rekreasyon Engelleri Ölçeği Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması, Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, XI(1):131-141.DOI: 10.13114/MJH.2019.453
16. Diener E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 93:542–575.
17. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., and Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 49:71-75.
18. Diener, E.D. (2000). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index. American Psychologist. 55(1):34-43. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.34.
19. Erkuş, A. (2014). Psikolojide Ölçme ve Ölçek Geliştirme-I. Temel Kavramlar ve İşlemler. II. Baskı. Pegem Yayınları. Ankara.
20. Eurostat, Quality of Life Indicators. (2015). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Quality_of_life _indicators. Okunma Tarihi: 14.09.2020.
21. Evans, D. R. (1994). Enhancing Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research. 33: 47-88.
22. Geray, C. (1998). Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi ve Belediyeler. Türk İade Dergisi. 70(421): 323-346.
23. Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts. M. ve Whatmore, S. (2009). Quality of Life, Dictionary of Human Geography (5th). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
24. İmai, M. (1994). KAİZEN: Japonya’nın Rekabetteki Başarısının Anahtarı. Brisa. ONK Ajans, İstanbul.
25. Kaiser, H. 1974. An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika 39: 31–36.
26. Liu, B.C. (1976). Quality of Life Indicators in US Metropolitan Areas:A Statistical Analysi., Praeger Publishers. New York.
27. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing. 6(4): 311-360.
28. McCall, S; (1975). Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research. 2: 229-248.
29. Miller, J.W. (2005).Wellness: The history and development of a concept. Spektrum Freizeit. 1(1):84-102.
30. OECD, OECS Better Life Index (2015). http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111. Okunma Tarihi: 14.09.2020.
31. Onyx, J. ve Bullen, P., 2000, Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1): 23-42.
32. The Quality of Life Research Unit, The Quality of Life Model. (2015). University of Toronto, http://sites.utoronto.ca/qol/qol _model.htm
33. Rogerson, R.J. (1997). Quality of Life in Britain, Quality of Life Research Group. University of Strathclyde. Glasgow.
34. Schreiber, J.B., Nora, A., Stage, F.K., Barlow, E.A., King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research. 99(6): 323-338.
35. Shin, D. ve Johnson, D. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assesment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research.5(1):475-492.
36. Sungur, M.Z. (1998). Cinsel Eğitim. Klinik Psikiyatri. 2:103-108.
37. Sümer N. (2000). Structural Equation Models (In Turkish: Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri). Turkish Journal of Psychology (In Turkish: Türk Psikoloji Yazıları). 3(6):49-74.
38. Şeker, M. (2015). Quality of Life Index: A Case Study of Istanbul. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sayı.23:1-15
39. Torlak, S. E. ve Yavuzçehre, P. S. (2008). Denizli Kent Yoksullarının Yaşam Kalitesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler. 17 (2): 23-44.
40. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The Four Qualities Of Life, Ordering Concepts and Measures of the Good Life. Journal of Happiness Studies. 1: 1–39.
41. White, S.C. (2008). But what is well-being? A framework for analysis in social and development policy and practice. In Conference on regeneration and wellbeing: research into practice, University of Bradford (Vol. 2425).
42. Zenhner, R. (1977). Indicators of the Quality of Life in New Comm unities. M.A. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge.