Deprem Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği: Geliştirilmesi, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Deprem, dünyadaki en yaygın doğal afetlerden biridir ve bazen en tehlikelisidir. Bireylerin depremin yıkıcı etkilerinden korunmaları için deprem hakkında yeterli bilgiye sahip olmaları önemlidir. Bunun için bireylerin deprem bilgisini ölçecek araçlara ihtiyaç vardır. Deprem Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi amacıyla planlanan bu araştırmanın çalışma evreni, 2018-2019 öğretim yılında Düzce Üniversitesi’nde öğrenim gören öğrenciler oluşturmaktadır. Tesadüfi örneklem yöntemiyle belirlenen araştırma grubunda, 501’i kadın, 227’si erkek olmak üzere toplam 728 gönüllü birey yer almıştır. Verilerin analizlere uygunluğu sınandıktan sonra gerçekleştirilen açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda, ölçek 19 maddeden oluşan üç boyutlu bir yapı sergilemiştir. Ölçeği oluşturan faktörler birlikte varyansın %61,744’ünü açıklamaktadır. Ölçeğin alt boyutları, deprem hakkında bilgi ifadelerine dayalı olarak isimlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen modelin uygunluğu RMSEA için 0,072; NFI için 0,93; GFI için 0,89, RMR için 0,041 ve AGFI için ise 0,86 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçekle ilgili olarak yapılan güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda ölçeğin iç tutarlık katsayısı (Cronbach alfa) ise 0,868 olarak belirlenmiştir. Geliştirilen bu ölçeğin, eğitsel amaçlı çalışmalara bir araç olarak destek sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Depreme ilişkin bilgi düzeyinin farklı değişkenlerle incelenmesine yardımcı olabilecek değişik araştırmaların yapılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deprem
• Deprem Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği
• Afet
• Deprem, Deprem Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği, Afet

Development of an Earthquake Knowledge Assessment Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Earthquake is one of the most common natural disasters in the world and sometimes the most dangerous. It is important that individuals have sufficient knowledge about the earthquake in order to be protected from its destructive effects. For this, there is a need for instruments to measure the earthquake knowledge of individuals. The aim of this study is to develop Earthquake Knowledge Assessment Scale. The study group of this research consists of a total of 728 volunteers, 501 of whom were women and 227 men, who were included in the research group determined by convenience sampling technique. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, which was completed after testing the suitability of the data for analysis, the scale showed a three-dimensional structure consisting of 19 items. The factors that constitute the scale explain 61,744% of the variance. The sub-dimensions of the scale were named based on the knowledge about the earthquake. The suitability of the obtained scale was 0.072 for Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), 0.93 for Normed Fit Index (NFI), 0,89 for Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), 0.041 for Root Mean Square Residuals (RMR), and 0.86 for Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI). As a result of the reliability analysis, the internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach alpha) of the scale was determined as 0.868. It is thought that this developed scale could be useful to school managers, teachers, researchers, developers of school infrastructure, and the government ministry in charge of education.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• Earthquake Knowledge Level Scale
• Disaster
• Earthquake, Earthquake Knowledge Level Scale, Disaster

Kaynakça

1. Akalın, S., Şaki̇roğlu, M., Tunç, B, & Eren, S. (2020). Investigation of some variables predicting the earthquake preparedness behavior: Aydın sample. Dokuz Eylul University The Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 22 (3) , 977-993. DOI:10.16953/deusosbil.528570
2. Akar, S. (2013). The impact of natural disasters on public finance and macroeconomy: Turkey case. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 21, 185-206.
3. 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 University Journal of Science, 7(1), 279-297. Atalay, İ. (1987). Introduction to geomorphology of Turkey. İzmir: Ege University, Edebiyat Fakültesi Yay. No:9.
4. Atalay, İ. (2007). General geography. İzmir. Meta Basım Batbaacılık.
5. 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.
6. Ao, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Martek, I. Wang, G. (2021). Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Natural Hazards https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04632-w
7. Arıkan, R. (2004). Research techniques ve report preparing. Ankara: Asil Publishing.
8. Aydın, F. & Güngördü, E. (2015). Special teaching methods in geography education. Ankara; Pegem Akademi

9. Bozkurt, V. (1999). Earthquake and society. İstanbul: Alfa Printing Publishing Distribution.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Manual of data analysis for social sciences (7. press.). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
11. Cross, J. A. (1997). Natural hazards and disaster information on the internet, Journal of Geography, 96(6), 307-314, DOI: 10.1080/00221349708978812.
12. Cross, J. A. (2000) Hazards courses in North American Geography programs. Environmental Hazards, 2, 77-86.
13. 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.
14. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Multivariate for social sciences SPSS and LİSREL applications (2nd press). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
15. Davis, L.L.(1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5,194-197.
16. Demirci, A. & Yıldırım, S. (2015). Evaluation of earthquake awareness of secondary school students in Istanbul. National Education. 207,89-117.
17. 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.
18. 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), pp: 68-76.
19. Doğanay, H. & Sever, R. (2016). General and physical geography. Ankara; Pegem Akademi.
20. Doğanay, H. (2002). Introduction to geography 1. General and physical geography. İstanbul. Aktif Yayınaevi
21. Dölek, İ. (2019). Disasters and disaster management. Ankara. Pagem Akademi.
22. Erdik, M. (2002). Earthquake performance and vulnerability of buildings in Turkey. İstanbul: Deprem Mühendisliği Bölümü, Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
23. Erdoğan, C., & Aksoy, Ö. (2020). Strategies for coping with earthquake stress (Balıkesir Karesi district, Pasaalanı neighborhood example. The Journal of Social Sciences Academy, 3 (2), 88-103. DOI: 10.38004/sobad.704072
24. Erdoğan, H. (2007). Teaching natural disasters subject in secondary education geography lessons using geography information system implementation (arcgis). Unpublished Thesis. Marmara Uni. Institute of Educational Sciences.
25. Ergünay, O. (1996). What is disaster management? how it should be. Dinar earthquake in Erzincan and the search for solutions to problems in the light of Turkey's earthquake. TÜBİTAK Deprem Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı. (Ed. Tuğrul TANKUT), 263-272, Ankara.
26. Erinç, S. (2000). Geomorphology I. İstanbul: Der Publishing.
27. 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.
28. Erkuş, A. (2003). Articles on psychometry. Ankara: Turkish Psychologists Association Publications.
29. Erol, O. (1993) General climatology. Ankara. Gazi Büro Kitabevi
30. 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.
31. Genç, M. & Sözen, E. (2021). The sustainable scale of earthquake awareness, development, validity and reliability study . International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education , 11 (1) , 24-41 . DOI: 10.18497/iejeegreen.794680
32. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Hooper, D. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Approaches to quantitative research–Theory and its practical application: A guide to dissertation students, H. Chen, ed., Oak Tree Press, Cork, Ireland.
34. Hooper, D, Coughlan, J, & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6, 53–60.
35. Ilgar, R. (2016). General physical geography (Earth sciences). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
36. İzbırak, R. (1991). Earth Sciences knowledges. İstanbul: Ministry of Education Publishing.
37. 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.
38. Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
39. Kanat, M. H.(ed.) (2016) Turkey Geography and Geopolitics. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
40. Kaptan, S. (1983). Scientific research techniques and statistical methods. Ankara: Tekışık Printing Press.
41. 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.
42. Karasar, N. (2016). Scientific will with perception frame scientific research method concepts principles techniques. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
43. Kardaş, F. & Tanhan, F. (2018). Investigating posttraumatic stress, posttraumatic growth and hopelessness levels of university students exposed to the Van earthquake, YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1),1-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.60
44. Kasapoğlu, A. & Ecevit M. (2001). Sociological research of the earthquake. Ankara: Sociology Association Publications, Issue:8.
45. Kaya B., & Aladağ C. (2017). Determining the cognitive structures of geography teacher candidates on “Earthquake”. International Education Studies, 10(1), 122-136.
46. Kayalı, H. (2018). A research on the attıtude of eight grade students towards earthquake. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(11), 399-405.
47. Kayış, A. (2016). Reliability Analysis, Ed.: Şeref Kalaycı, Spss applied multivariate statistical techniques, 7th press. Publishing, Ankara, pp:401-419.
48. Kayri, M. & Gunuç, S. (2009). The adaptation of internet addiction scale into Turkish: the study of validity and reliability. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 42 (1), 157-175.
49. Köseoğlu, M. (2015). Disaster management and humanitarian aid. Ankara. Nobel Yayınları. Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. & Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics, Use and Interpretation. 2nd Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah.
50. Lutgens, F. K., Tarbuck, E. J., & Tasa, D. (2013). Essentials of geology. Nobel Academic Publishing, Translation Editor: Cahit Helvecı, Ankara.
51. 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.
52. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basic of structual equation modeling. California: Sage.
53. Morgan, D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to healt research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.
54. Munich, RE. (2010). Topics: natural catastrophes, annual rewiew of natural catastrophes 2009. Munchen: Munich Re Insurance Company.
55. Ohnishi, K. & Mitsuhashi, H. (2013). Geography education challenges regarding disaster mitigation in Japan. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 3(3), 230-240.
56. Olanipekun, A. O., Xia, B., Hon, C., & Hu, Y. (2017). Project owners’ motivation for delivering green building projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(9), 04017068.
57. 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.
58. Özçeti̇n, A , Maraş, A , Ataoğlu, A , & İçmeli̇, C . (2008). The relationship between personality disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder developed after earthquake. Duzce Medical Journal, 10 (2), 8-18. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dtfd/issue/48264/610974
59. 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.
60. 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, 63(1), 75-88.
61. Paul, BK, Bhuiyan, RH (2010). Urban earthquake hazard: perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City. Bangladesh Disasters, 34(2), 337–359
62. Pelling, M., Özerdem A. & Barakat S. (2002). The macro-economic impact of disaster. Progress in Devolopment Studies. 2(4), 283-305.
63. Ross, K.E.K. & Shuell T.J. (1993). Children’s beliefs about earthquakes. Science Education, 77(2), 191-205.
64. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Keith, N., Moosbrugger, H., & Hodapp, V. (2004). Decomposing person and occasion-specific effects: An extension of latent state-trait theory to hierar- chical LST models. Psychological Methods, 9, 198-219.
65. 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.
66. 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 University Institute of Sociall Sciences, Sakarya.
67. Shaw, R., Kobayashi, K. S. H., & Kobayashi, M. (2004). Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 13, 39–49.
68. Sözen, E. (2019). The opinions of undergraduate students during the undergraduate education on geography content lectures, Manas Journal of Social Studies, 8(1/1): 39-54
69. Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation modelling; basic consepts and applications. Turkish Psychology Articles, 3 (6), 49-74.
70. Şahin, C., Doğanay H. & Özcan, N. A. (2004). Turkey geography (Physical, human and geopolitics). Ankara: Gündüz Education and Publishing.
71. Şahin, C., & Sipahioğlu, Ş. (2007). Natural disasters and Turkey. Ankara: Gündüz Education and Publishing.
72. Şencan, H. (2005). Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
73. Şimşek, Ö.F.(2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling. Ankara: Ekinoks Publishing.
74. Tabachnick, G. B., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). USA: Allyon and Bacon Press.
75. 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.
76. Taş, G. (2003). The evaluation of teaching in secondary schools in Turkey subject to natural disasters.. Unpublished postgraduate Thesis. Gazi University. Institute of Educational Sciences.
77. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Measurement of attitudes and Data analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
78. Tekeli‐Yeşil, S., Dedeoğlu, N., Braun‐Fahrlaender, C., & Tanner, M. (2010). Factors motivating individuals to take precautionary action for an expected earthquake in Istanbul. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(8), 1181-1195.
79. 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.
80. Tsai, C-C. (2001). Ideas about earthquakes after experiencing a natural disaster in taiwan: an analysis of students’ worldviews. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (10), 1007-1016.
81. TUBITAK, (2001). After 17 August 1999 earthquake geological survey of alternative settlement areas, Ankara.
82. Tuncer, N , Sözen, Ş , Sakar, Ş . (2021). Earthquake awareness in preschool education: The project of "Earthquake! You are smaller than me", example of Tokat. International Journal of Educational Spectrum, 3 (1), 1-27. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijesacademic/issue/60410/756668
83. Tümertekin, E. & Özgüç, N. (2004) Human geography, human, culture, space. İstanbul. Çantay Kitabevi
84. Türkan, A, Kılıç, İ, & Ti̇ryaki̇oğlu, M. (2019). Development of a disaster attitude scale and assessment of university students' attitudes towards disasters . Ege Academic Review, 19 (4), 457-467 . DOI: 10.21121/eab.476531
85. Vance, K., Miller, K., & Hand, B. (1995). Two constructivist approaches to teaching ecology at the middle school level. The American Biology Teacher, 244-249.
86. 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 University. Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.
87. Yöndem, D. Z, & Eren, A. (2008). Validity and reliability studies of earthquake stress coping scale (ESCS). Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3(30), 60-75. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tpdrd/issue/21450/229678