-

Öz

The purpose of this study is to adapt the Communication Functions Questionnaire (CFQ) develop by Burleson and Samter (1990) to Turkish and to perform validity and reliability analyses of the scale. The CFQ was applied to 193 college of communication students from a University located in the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. The CFQ consists of 10 subscales including comforting skills, conflict management, conversational skills, ego supportive skills, expressiveness, referential skills, listening, narrative skills, persuasion and regulation. The CFQ are also two secondary factors termed affectively oriented skills and instrumental oriented skills. Back translation technique was used to adopt the CFQ into Turkish. After finalizing language (translation) and cultural adaptation process, validity and reliability analyses were conducted. Results from exploratory and two step-confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the original form of CFQ and its Turkish version were consistent in terms of hypothesized structure. Internal consistency coefficients varied between .75 and .89 for the 10 factor structure and varied between .87 and .90 for the second order model. In conclusion, the Turkish Version of the CFQ is found to be a valid and reliable instrument to measure communication functions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Communication functions, validity, reliability

İLETİŞİM İŞLEVLERİ SORMACASI'NIN TÜRKÇE VERSİYONU İÇİN GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Burleson ve Samter (1990) tarafından geliştirilen İletişim İşlevleri Sormacası'nı (İİS) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve sormacanın geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerini gerçekleştirmektir. Araştırmaya Orta Anadolu'da bir üniversitenin İletişim Fakültesi'nde öğrenim gören 193 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. İİS; rahatlama, çatışmaları yönetme/çözümleme, sohbet etme, benlik desteği verme,  ifade etme, bilgi verme, dinleme, anlatım, ikna etme ve düzenleme becerileri olmak üzere 10 alt boyut içermektedir. Ayrıca söz konusu alt boyutlar duyuşsal yönelimli ve enstrümental yönelimli olmak üzere iki üst boyutta toplanmıştır.İİS'nin Türkçeye uyumlaştırılması geri çeviri tekniğiyle yapılmıştır. Dilsel ve kültürel uyumlaştırılma yapıldıktan sonra geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. Yapılan açımlayıcı faktör analizi ve iki aşamalı doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri sonuçları sormacanın orijinal formla tutarlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Sormacanın iç tutarlılık katsayıları 10 faktörlü birinci düzey modelde 0,75 ile 0,89, ikinci düzey faktöriyel modelde ise 0,87 ile 0,90 arasında bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlara göre İİS'nin Türkçe Formu, iletişim işlevlerinin ölçülmesinde kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme araçtır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İletişim işlevleri; geçerlik; güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Akkuzu N ve Akkaya N (2014) Development and Validity-Reliability Study Of Communication Skills Scale for Student Teachers: Suggestion of An Alternative Model, Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9/8, 111-132.
2. Argon T ve Zafer D (2009) İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin İletişim Sürecinde Yaşadıkları Problemler (Nitel Bir Çalışma), The Journal of SAU Education Faculty, 18, 99-123.
3. Aylor B (2003) The Impact Of Sex, Gender And Cognitive Complexity On The Perceived Importance Of Teacher Communication Skills, Communication Stud- ies, 54, 496-509.
4. Baringer D and McCroskey J (2000) Immediacy in The Classroom: Student Im- mediacy, Communication Education, 49, 179-186.
5. Basaran M ve Erdem I (2009) Öğretmen Adaylarının Güzel Konuşma Becerisi İle İlgili Görüşleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(3), 743-754.
6. Burleson B R, Kunkel A W, Samter W and Werking K (1996) Men’s and Women’s Evaluations Of Communication Skills in Personal Relationships: When Sex Differences Make A Difference—And When They Don’t, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 201-224.
7. Burleson B R and Mortenson S R (2003) Explaining Cultural Differences in Evaluations Of Emotional Support Behaviors: Exploring The Mediating Influences Of Value Systems and Interaction Goals, Communication Research, 30, 113–146.
8. Burleson B and Samter W (1990) Effects Of Cognitive Complexity On The

9. Perceived Importance Communication Skills in Friends, Communication
10. Reseach, 17, 165-182.
11. Burleson B, Samter W and Lucchetti A E (1992) Similarity in Communication Values As A Predictor Of Friendship Choices: Studies Of Friends and Best Friends, Southern Communication Journal, 57, 260-276.
12. Çetinkanat C (1997) Öğretmenlerin İletişim Becerileri, Paper presented at the 3th International Elementary Teaching Semposium, Adana-Turkey: Çukurova University.
13. Field A P (2013) Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics: And Sex And Drugs And Rock 'N' Roll (4th Ed.), Sage, London.
14. Finn A and Powers W G (2002) The Value Of Instrumental and Affective Communication Skills in Different Relational Stages, Communication Quarterly, 50, 192-203.
15. Frymier A B and Houser M L (2000) The Teacher-Student Relationship As An Interpersonal Relationship, Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
16. Frymier A and Weser B (2001) The Role Of Student Predispositions On Student Expectations For Instructor Communication Behavior, Communication Educa- tion, 50, 314-326.
17. Hazneci Y (2012) Oluşturmacı Öğretmen İletişim Beceri Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi Ve İlköğretim Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf İçi İletişim Becerilerinin İncelenmesi, Yayın- lanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
18. Hu L and Bentler P M (1999) Cutoff Criteria For Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6,1, 1-55.
19. Jones S M (2005) Attachment Style Differences And Similarities in Evaluations Of Affective Communication Skills And Person-Centered Comforting Messages, Western Journal of Communication, 69, 233-249.
20. Karagöz Y ve Kösterelioğlu I (2008) İletişim Becerileri Değerlendirme Ölçeğinin Faktör Analizi Metodu İle Geliştirilmesi, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilim- ler Dergisi, 21, 81-98.
21. Kline R B (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Pres, New York.
22. Kunkel A W and Burleson B (2003) Relational Implications Of Communication Skill Evaluations And Love Styles, Southern Communication Journal, 68, 181-197. Myers S and Knox R (2001) The Relationship Between College Student Informa- tion-Seeking Behaviors And Perceived Instructor Verbal Behaviors, Communica- tion Education, 50, 343-356.
23. Myers S, Mottet T and Martin M (2000) The Relationship Between Student Com- munication Motives And Perceived Instructor Communication Style, Communi- cation Research Reports, 17, 161-170.
24. Nussbaum J (1992) Effective Teacher Behaviors, Communication Education, 41, 167-180.
25. Rodriquez J, Plax T G and Kearney P (1996) Clarifying The Relationship Between Teacher Nonverbal Immediacy and Student Cognitive Learning: Affective Learn- ing As The Central Causal Mediator, Communication Education, 45, 293-305.
26. Rubin R B, Rubin A M, Graham E E, Perse E M and Seibold D R (2009) Commu- nication Research Measures II, Routledge, Newyork.
27. Samter W and Burleson B R (2005) The Role Of Communication in Same-Sex Friendships:A Comparison Among African Americans, Asian Americans, And European Americans, Communication Quarterly, 53, 265–283.
28. Samter W, Whaley B B, Mortenson S R and Burleson B R (1997) Ethnicity And Emotional Support in Same-Sex Friendships: A Comparison Of African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, Personal Relationships, 4, 413–430.
29. Simonds C (1997) Challenge Behavior in The College Classroom, Communication Research Reports, 14, 481-492.
30. Tabachnick B G and Fidell L S (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
31. Tarhan U (2000) Effect Of Interpersonel Skills Training On Teachers Communication Skills and Self Awareness, PhD dissertation, The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
32. Toyoda H (1998) Covariance Structure Analysis (ABC): Structural Equation Modeling, Asakura Publishing, Tokyo, 177.
33. Ünsal P, Oğuz A, Özburun C ve Özlü E (1999) Bir Büro Ortamında Çalışan Kişi- lerin Ast, Üst Ve Aynı Düzeydeki İşgörenlerde Aradıkları İletişim Becerileri, İ. Ü. Tecrübi Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi, 21, 123-137.
34. Wanzer B (1998) An Exploratory Investigation Of Student and Teacher Percep- tions Of Student Generated Affinity-Seeking Behaviors, Communication Educa- tion, 47, 373-382.