Validity and Reliability of Centralization Scale

Öz

The aim of the present study is to adapt Centralization Scale, which was developed by Aiken & Hage (1966) and Hage & Aiken (1967), and to test the validity and reliability of the scale. The study was carried out in three stages. In the first stage, translation studies, in the second stage validity analysis and in the third stage reliability analysis were performed. The method proposed by Brislin (1970) for adapting the scale to Turkish was used, and the data obtained as a result of the application of the scale to a sample consisting of 316 people (200 people for exploratory factor analysis and 116 people for confirmatory factor analysis) were used for expert opinion in the control of the scope and logical validity and in the analyzes conducted within the framework of the control of construct validity and reliability. SPSS and AMOS software and R programming language were used for analysis. As a result of the study; we revealed that Turkish version of the scale was formed in three-factors and factor loadings of sub-factors were collected between 0.871-0.846, 0.851-0.816 and 0.861-0.729 values, goodness of fit indices are conformed with the recommended values in the literature, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value is 0.806, and other statistical values for reliability are conformed with previous studies. In this context, we revealed that Centralization Scale developed by Aiken & Hage (1966) and Hage & Aiken (1967) can be used conveniently in the field of social sciences in Turkey without any change in the factor structure and items. However, it is considered that it would be appropriate to check the suitability of the scale with the sample data via confirmatory factor analysis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Centralization,Scala,Reliability,Validity

Merkezileşme Ölçeği’nin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, Aiken ve Hage (1966) ile Hage ve Aiken (1967) tarafından geliştirilen Merkezileşme Ölçeği'ni Türkçeye uyarlamak ve söz konusu ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizini yapmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda yapılan çalışma üç aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. İlk aşamada çeviri çalışmaları, ikinci aşamada geçerlik ile ilgili çalışmalar ve üçüncü aşamada ise güvenirlik ile ilgili çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlanmasında Brislin (1970) tarafından önerilen yöntem kullanılmıştır. Kapsam ve mantıksal geçerliğinin kontrolünde uzman görüşüne ve yapı geçerliği (faktör analizi) ile güvenirliğin kontrolü kapsamında yapılan analizlerde ise ölçeğin 316 kişiden oluşan bir örnekleme (200 kişi keşfedici faktör analizinde ve 116 kişi doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde) uygulanması neticesinde elde edilen verilerden faydalanılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında yapılan analizlerde SPSS ve AMOS paket programları ile R programlama dili kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonunda: Ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonunun üç boyutlu olduğu, her üç alt boyutun faktör yüklerinin 0,871-0,846, 0,851-0,816 ve 0,861-0,729 arasında toplandığı, uyum iyiliği değerlerinin yazındaki referans değerleri arasında yer aldığı, Cronbach’s alpha katsayısı değerinin 0,806 olduğu, güvenirlik için gerekli olan diğer istatistiki değerlerin daha önce yapılmış çalışmalar ile uyumlu olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda Aiken ve Hage (1966) ile Hage ve Aiken (1967) tarafından geliştirilen Merkezileşme Ölçeği’nin soru maddelerinde herhangi bir değişiklik yapılmadan üç alt boyutlu olarak Türkiye’de sosyal bilimler alanında yapılacak çalışmalarda kullanılabileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ancak ölçeğin örneklem verilerine uygunluğunun doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmesinin uygun olacağı önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Merkezileşme,Ölçek,Geçerlik,Güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Kaynakça
2. Kitaplar
3. Alpar, R. (2012). Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara. Andersson, J. ve Zbirenko, A. (2014). Effect of Organizational Structure, Leadership and Communication on Efficiency and Productivity-A Qualitative Study of a Public Health-care Organization. Bachelor Thesis, Umeä Universitet. Ataman, G. (2001). İşletme Yönetimi, Türkmen Kitabevi, İstanbul. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N. ve Mendonça, M. (2016). Kültürler Arası Bağlamda Örgütler ve Yönetim, Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul. Bolman, L.G., Deal, T.E. (2013). Organizasyonları Yeniden Yapılandırmak, Çev. Ahmet Aypay ve Abdurrahman Tanrıöğen, Seçkin, Ankara. Clemmer, J. (2003). Organization Structure Limits or Liberates High Performance, http://www.clemmer.net/excerpts/ph_orglimits.html (Erişim Tarihi: 29.10.2019). Daft, Richard L. (2015). Örgüt Kuramları ve Tasarımlarını Anlamak, Çev.Ed. Ömür N. Timurcanday Özmen, Nobel, Ankara. Durmuş, B. Yurtkoru, E.S. ve Çinko, M. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi, (2. Baskı), Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul. Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly, J.H. ve Konopaske, R. (2011). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes, (14. Ed.), McGraw-Hill/Irwin, USA. Koçel, Tamer, (2014). İşletme Yöneticiliği, Genişletilmiş 15.b., Beta, İstanbul. Meydan H.C. ve Şeşen H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice Hall, USA. Mintzberg, H. (2014). Örgütler ve Yapıları, (Çev. Ahmet Aypay Ed.) Nobel, Ankara. Koç, U. (2013). Koşul-Bağımlılık Kuramı, İçinde Taşçı, Deniz ve Erdemir, Erkan (Eds). Örgüt Kuramı, Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, Eskişehir, 31-46. Saruhan, S.C. ve Yıldız, M.L. (2009). Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimi, Beta, İstanbul. Sığrı, Ü. (2012). Örgüt Araştırmaları Alanının Doğuşu ve Gelişimi, İçinde Sözen, H.C. ve Basım, H.N. (Eds). Örgüt Kuramları, Beta, İstanbul, 35-53. Underdown, R. (2012). Organizational Structures, http://dept.lamar.edu/industrial/ underdown/org_mana/org/org_structure-George.html (Erişim Tarihi: 9.11.2019).
4. Makaleler
5. Aiken, M. ve Hage, J. (1966). Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis, American Sociological Review, 31(4), 497-507. Ajagbe, M.A., Cho, N.M., Udo, E.E.U., Peter, O.F. (2016). How Organizational Structure Aids Business Performance, International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 7(8), 64-68. Brislin, R.W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. Caruana, A., Morris, M.H. ve Vella, A.J. (1998). The Effect of Centralization and Formalization on Entrepreneurship in Export Firms, Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1), 16-29. Child, J. (1972). Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 163-177. Dalton, D.R., Todor, W.D., Spendolini, M.J. Fielding G.J. ve Porter, L.W. (1980). Organization Structure and Performance: A Critical Review, The Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 49-64. Defee, C.C. ve Stank, T.P. (2005). Applying the Strategy-Structure-Performance Paradigm to the Supply Chain Environment, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 16(1), 28-50. Deshpande, R. ve Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research Information: A Path Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 14-31. Dewar, R.D., Whetten, D.A. ve Boje, D. (1980). An Examination of the Reliability and Validity of the Aiken and Hage Scales of Centralization, Formalization, and Task Routineness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 120-128. Ferrell, O.C. ve Skinner, S.J. (1988). Ethical Behavior and Bureaucratic Structure in Marketing Research Organizations, Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103-109. Fredrickson, J.W. (1986). The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure, The Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 280-297. Fry, L.W. ve Slocum, J.W. (1984). Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model, Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 221-246. Hage, J. ve Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 72-92. Hoskisson, R.E. (1987). Multidivisional Structure and Performance: The Contingency of Diversification Strategy, The Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 625-644. Jaworski, B.J. ve Kohli, A.K. (1996). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of Marketing, 57, 53-70. James, L.R. ve Allan P. J. (1976). Organizational Structure: A Review of Structural Dimensions and Their Conceptual Relationships with Individual Attitudes and Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 74-113. John, G. (1984)., An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents of Opportunism in a Marketing Channel, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 279-289. Menon, A., Sundar G.B., Phani T.A. ve Edison, S.W. (1999). Antecedents and Consequences of Marketing Strategy Making: A Model and a Test, The Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 18-40. Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. ve Coleman, H.J. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562. Miller, L.E. ve Weiss, R.M. (1991). Factor Analytic Study of the Aiken and Hage Measures of Perceived Organizational Structure and Technology, Psychological Reports, 68, 1379-1386. Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R. ve Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81-101. Oldham, G.R. ve Hack, J.R. (1981). Relationships between Organizational Structure and Employee Reactions: Comparing Alternative Frameworks, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 66-83. Olson, E.M., Slater, S.F. ve Hult, G.T.M. (2005). The Performance Implications of Fit Among Business Strategy, Marketing Organization Structure, and Strategic Behavior, Journal of Marketing, 69, 49-65. Pandey, S.K. ve Wright, B.E. (2006). Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manager’s Role Ambiguity, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 511-532. Penning, J. (1973). Measures of Organizational Structure: A Methodological Note, The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 686-704. Pierce, J.L. ve Delbecq, A.L. (1977). Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation, The Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 27-37. Porter, L.W. ve Lawler, E.E. (1965). Properties of Organization Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes and Job Behavior, Psychological Bulletin, 64(1), 23-51. Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. ve Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of Organization Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65-105. Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J. ve Hinings, C.R. (1969). An Empirical Taxonomy of Structures of Work Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 115-126. Rhee, J., Seog, S.D., Bozorov, F. ve Dedahanov, A.T. (2017). Organizational Structure and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Empowerment, Social Behavior and Personality, 45(9), 1523-1536. Schminke, M., Ambrose, M.L. ve Cropanzano, R.S. (2000). The Effect of Organizational Structure on Perceptions of Procedural Fairness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 294-304. Tran, Q. ve Tian, Y. (2013). Organizational Structure: Influencing Factors and Impact on a Firm, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3, 229-236. Van der Voet, J. (2014). The Effectiveness and Specificity of Change Management in a Public Organization: Transformational Leadership and a Bureaucratic Organizational Structure, European Management Journal, 32(3), 373-382. Zheng, W., Yang, B. ve McLean, G.N. (2010). Linking Organizational Culture, Structure, Strategy, and Organizational Effectiveness: Mediating Role of Knowledge Management, Journal of Business Research, 63, 763-77