Turkish Adaptation of the Shared Mental Models in Team Sports Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

The Shared Mental Model in Team Sports is to allow team members to use their own well-structured knowledge as a resource to select actions consistent and coordinated with their teammates. In this context, the aim of the study was to test Shared Mental Models Scale to Turkish athletes with the aim of turning individual achievements into team success. The sample of the study, which was determined by convenience sampling method, was 330 athletes including amateur football, volleyball, handball and basketball players from different categories in Turkey, ranging from ages 15 to 39 (Xage=2.60+/-3,64). In this study, the factor structure of the Shared Mental Models in Team Sports Scale, developed by Gershgoren (2012) was tested, and the validity and reliability study of both 13 and 3 sub-scales structures of the scale were performed. The adaptation of the scale went through certain stages. Firstly, linguistic equivalence study was carried out. The scale was then subjected to content validity, construct validity, convergent validity and decomposition validity, respectively. In addition, Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient was used for the reliability of the scale. As result of the analyses, the scores obtained from the validity and reliability tests support the 49-item and 13 sub-scales structures of the Mental Model Shared in Team Sports. Besides; as a result of the validity and reliability study for 3 sub-dimensional structures, it was decided that the scale was applicable for Turkish athletes. The Shared Mental Models in Team Sports Scale can be used to evaluate the general characteristics of shared mental models and to evaluate team members' specific and general cognitive structures and efficacy beliefs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Team sports,Shared mental models,Validity,Reliability

Takım Sporlarında Paylaşılan Zihinsel Modeller Ölçeği’nin Türk Sporculara Yönelik Sınanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Takım Sporlarında Paylaşılan Zihinsel Modelin işlevi, ekip üyelerinin takım arkadaşlarınınkilerle tutarlı ve koordineli eylemleri seçmek için bir kaynak olarak kendi iyi yapılandırılmış bilgilerini kullanmalarına izin vermektir. Bu kapsamda bu çalışmanın amacı bireysel başarıların ekip başarısına dönüşmesi adına Takım Sporlarında Paylaşılan Zihinsel Modeller Ölçeği’nin (TSPZMÖ) Türk sporcularına olarak yönelik sınanmasıdır. Çalışmanın örneklem grubunu uygun örnekleme metoduyla belirlenen ve Türkiye’de farklı amatör liglerde futbol, voleybol, hentbol ve basketbol oynayan yaşları 15 ila 39 arasında değişen (Xyaş=2.60+/-3,64) 330 sporcu oluşturmuştur. Bu araştırma, Gershgoren (2012) tarafından geliştirilen “Shared Mental Models in Team Sports Questionnaire” ölçeğinin faktör yapısı test edilmiş, ölçeğin hem 13 hem de 3 alt boyutlu yapılarının geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin uyarlanması belirli aşamalardan geçmiştir. Öncelikle dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışması yapılmıştır. Ölçek daha sonra sırasıyla kapsam geçerliliği, yapı geçerliliği, yakınsak geçerlilik ve ayrışma geçerliliği analizlerine tabii tutularak son şeklini almıştır. Ayrıca ölçeğin güvenirliliğine ise Cronbach’s Alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda geçerlik ve güvenirlik testlerinden elde edilen puanlar Takım Sporlarında Paylaşılan Zihinsel Modeller Ölçeği’nin 49 maddeli ve 13 alt boyutlu yapısını desteklemektedir. 3 alt boyutlu yapı için ayrıca yapılan geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışması sonucunda da ölçeğin Türk sporcular için uygun olduğuna karar verilmiştir. Takım Sporlarında Paylaşılan Zihinsel Modeller Ölçeği, paylaşılan zihinsel modellerin genel özelliklerini değerlendirmek ve takım üyelerinin özel ve genel bilişsel yapıları ile etkinlik inançları hakkındaki değerlendirmeleri için kullanılabilir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Takım Sporları,Paylaşılan Zihinsel Modeller,Geçerlilik,Güvenirlilik

Kaynakça

1. Apitzsch, E. (2009). Coaches’ and elite team players’ perception and experiencing of collective collapse. Athletic Insight, 1 (2), 57–74.
2. Arnesen, M. (2019). Felles mentale modeller blant håndballspillere. Master Thesis. University of Stavanger, Norway.
3. Backer, J., Cote, J. & Abernethy, B. (2003). Sport-specific practice and the development of expert decision-making in team ball sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200305400.
4. Baumgartner, H. & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0.
5. Bourbousson, J. Poizat, G., Saury, J., & Seve, C. (2010). Team coordination in basketball: Description of the cognitive connections among teammates. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413201003664657.
6. Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005.
7. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L. & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189-1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189.
8. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (multivariate applications series). New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 396, 7384.

9. Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Bowers, C. (2006). Applying work team results to sports teams: Opportunities and cautions. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(4), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671807.
10. Converse, S., Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and group decision making: Current issues, 221, 221-46.
11. Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The Nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100004733.
12. Eccles, D. W. & Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A socialcognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26(4), 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.4.542.
13. Entin, E. E. & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human factors, 41(2), 312-325. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779591196.
14. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
15. Forza, C. & Filippini, R. (1998). TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00007-3.
16. Gershgoren, L. (2012). The development and validation of the shared mental models in team sports questionnaire. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
17. Gershgoren, L., Filho, E. M., Tenenbaum, G. & Schinke, R. J. (2013). Coaching shared mental models in soccer: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 7(4), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.7.4.293.
18. Giske, R., Rodahl, S. E. & Høigaard, R. (2015). Shared mental task models in elite ice hockey and handball teams: Does it exist and how does the coach intervene to make an impact?. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(1), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.940431.
19. Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Manual sketching: Why is it still relevant?. In The Active Image (pp. 77-97). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_4.
20. Goldschmidt, G. & Surasky, T. (2011). The Use of Graphic Representations in Semiconductor Engineering Team Problem Solving. In ICORD 11: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research into Design Engineering, Bangalore, India, 10.-12.01. 2011.
21. Greenspoon, P.J. & Saklofske, D.H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965-971.
22. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
23. Hu, L. T. & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
24. Huang, C. C., Wang, Y. M., Wu, T. W. &Wang, P. A. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. International Journal of Information & Education Technology, 3(2), 217-221. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267.
25. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
26. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Third Edition). New York: Guilford Press.
27. Langan‐Fox, J., Anglim, J. & Wilson, J. R. (2004). Mental models, team mental models, and performance: Process, development, and future directions. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(4), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20004.
28. Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1.
30. McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological methods, 7(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64.
31. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education
32. Reimer, T., Park, E. S. & Hinsz, V. B. (2006). Shared and coordinated cognition in competitive and dynamic task environments: An information-processing perspective for team sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(4), 376-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671804.
33. Rouse, W. B. & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological bulletin, 100(3), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349
34. Sartre, J.P. (2002). Fotboldholdet som gruppe den gode malvakt. In P. Christensen & F. Stjernefelt (Ed.), Fodbold: forfattere om fænomenet fotbold [Soccer: Authors on football as a phenomena] København. Denmark: Gyldendal.
35. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
36. Ward, P. & Eccles, D.W. (2006). A commentary on team cognition and expert teams: Emerging insights into performance for exceptional teams. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671808.
37. Wilson, F.R., Pan, W. & Schumsky, D.A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286.
38. Yazıcı, E. ve Düzkaya, H. (2016). Dünya kalkınma raporu 2015 perspektifinden yoksulluk, çocuk gelişimi, ev idaresi ve verimliliğe yeniden bakış. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 20(3), 611-631.
39. Yazıcı, G. (2018). Tasarım ortamında etkileşimli imgelem ve paylaşılan zihinsel modeller arasındaki ilişki. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, İzmir.
40. Yurdagül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. 14. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Denizli.