The Turkish Adaptation of Live Free-Tobacco Free Smoke Free Survey in Schools: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Background: After “Law for the Prevention of the Harms of Tobacco Products” introduced on November 7, 1996 in Turkey, it was revised on the basis of the previous law on January 3, 2008 and was announced as “smoke-free air zone policy”. Thus the new implementation, inspired by the Spanish law, put an end to isolated smoking areas. As of May 19, 2009, indoor smoking was strictly banned in public institutions. Later on this was expanded for all business organizations in the wake of July 19, 2009. Teachers and school administrators have a relatively negative perception on smoke-free regulation in terms of their smoking habit (Fidan, Sezer, Demirel, Kara and Ünlü, 2006). Wold, Torsheim, Currie, and Roberts (2004) revealed that school managers and teachers keep on smoking in the school zone, especially outside the school building in seven European countries so that they legitimize smoking addiction in front of their pupils.From the viewpoint of teachers, Gözütok (1999) showed that when school administrators and teachers ranked descendingly 34 non-ethical behaviors for teachers, “smoking attitude in front of students” seems rather an admissible behavior and took the 30th place. Likewise, Güçlü (2010) cited that the research center of Democratic Educators Union declared that on account of the smoke-free law teachers set a bad example for pupils by smoking right outside the schoolyard.It is obvious that teachers and school managers as cigarette smokers are not suitable role models in education environment. As a matter of fact, the most important point determining the compliance with legal enforcement rely on the teacher and school managers' perception on the smoke-free law so that it would be able to estimate how the policy can attain its “smoke-free, tobacco-free school” goal.The purpose of this study is to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Ferré, Moyer and Nobiling's Attitudes Towards Smoking Compliance Questionnaire released as part of Live Free- Tobacco Free Smoke Free Survey behalf on South Illiniois University. Method: Participants including teachers were recruited through Maltepe and Kartal districts in Istanbul and one hundred ninety-eight participants fulfilled the Turkish version survey with 15-items. They were assorted into two groups so that the first group consisted of one hundred twenty-seven teachers used for the structure validity study, and the other one consisted of seventy-one teachers used for the test-retest reliability study. In order to get the permission for translating the original survey into Turkish, we contacted Matt Moyer via email. Translated version of the survey After the survey translation into Turkish was done by a group including an linguist, an English teacher and a curriculum developer, it was appealed to Okullarda Dumansız Hava Sahası various educational administrator's view on Turkish version so as to confirm its content validity and cross-cultural conformity. Afterwards principal component and factor analysis, 27 % subgroup mean difference and test-retest reliability analysis was conducted through SPSS software. Findings and conclusions: Correlation matrix, KMO and Barlett's pretests were conducted with the data collected from one hundred twenty-seven teachers' questionnaire. Having examined the cross-correlation matrix regarding 15- items, it was found that there was no strong or weak correlation between them except third and thirteenth items. Later on, measure of sampling (MSA) table showed that two items has low anti-image values under .3 threshold value. Besides, Barlett's test indicated that the sample was adequate to conduct a factor analysis with the current sample size. Based upon these findings and expert views, three inappropriate items was extracted from the Turkish version. For second step, principal component and factor analysis was used to describe variability among observed variables consisted of twelve items left. According to factor values, it was brought out that the Turkish survey has two factors, plus one general factor which explains % 56.87 of total cumulative variance while first factor got a share of 44.29 % and latter 12.58 %, respectively. When performed the same survey twice at the different moments of time - within two weeks for this study-, the test retest reliability findings indicated that pearson correlation values have ranged from .57 to .94. In other words, the result of measurement has not changed over time. As for the mean difference between two 27 % sub groups and internal consistency reliability findings, the current research showed that there was no significant different in the subgroup and upper group of the scale (p< .01). Besides, Turkish survey was approved with Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α=0.87) in terms of its internal consistency. No doubt, smoking policy can be an effective tool for influencing pupils within and outside in school premises just as long as it could be sincerely confirmed by all educational stakeholders. So this study aimed to add a new dimension for smoking policy research in schools and other educational organizations by translating a well-known survey into Turkish.Therefore, it will provide to bring out how teachers and other educational components consider important smoking policies in schools such as smoke-free zone regulation. The results showed that the Turkish version of “Live Free-Tobacco Free Smoke Free Survey” is a valid and reliable instrument for assessment of school administrators and teachers' attitudes towards smoking compliance.

Keywords

• smoke-free in schools , smoke free survey , smoking ban

Okullarda Dumansız Hava Sahası Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı South Illinois Üniversitesi'nden Ferré, Moyer ve Nobiling (2009) tarafından geliştirilmiş “Okullarda Dumansız Hava Sahası” envanterinin “Sigara Yasağına Uyum” tutum ölçeğini Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerini gerçekleştirmektir. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması için İstanbul'un Maltepe ilçesinde görev yapan 198 öğretmen ve okul yöneticisini kapsayan iki çalışma grubu oluşturulmuştur. Birinci çalışma grubunu oluşturan 127 kişiden elde edilen verilerle ölçeğin yapısal geçerliğinin analizi için temel bileşenler yöntemiyle faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. İkinci grubu oluşturan 71 kişiden sağlanan verilere dayanılarak, iki hafta arayla yapılan ölçümler neticesinde ölçeğin test tekrar test güvenirlik analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin genel faktör yüküne sahip 12 maddeden oluştuğu ve toplam varyansın yaklaşık % 57'sini açıkladığı görülmüştür. Cronbach's Alpha iç tutarlık katsayısının .87 ve test-tekrar test korelasyon katsayısının .94 olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonlarının .50 ile .80 arasında değiştiği ve % 27'lik alt-üst gruplar arasında madde ayırt ediciliği açısından anlamlı fark bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen ölçüm sonuçlarına dayanılarak ölçeğin Türkçe formunun okullarda dumansız hava sahası uygulamasına ilişkin öğretmen tutumlarının ölçülmesinde geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• okullarda dumansız hava sahası , dumansız hava sahası ölçeği ,

Kaynakça

1. Bakırcı, N. ve Okuşluk, T. (2007). İstanbul’da bir grup işyerinde sigara içme yasakları ve bu yasakların çalışanların sigara içme davranışlarına etkisi. Toplum Hekimliği Bülteni, 26(1), 19-24.
2. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal bilimlerde veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A.
3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133- 151.
4. Candan, B. (2010). DES’ten sigara yasağının öğretmen ayağına tepki. Retrieved from http://www.haberler.com/des-ten-sigara-yasaginin-ogretmen-ayagina-tepki- haberi/
5. Cureton, E.E., & D’Agostino, R.B. (1983). Factor analysis an applied approach. Lawrence Eribaum Associates: New Jersey.
6. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem A.
7. Ferré, F., Moyer, M., & Nobiling, B. (2009). Live free-tobacco free smoke free survey. (aahperd.confex.com/aahperd/2009/webprogram/Handout/Paper13112/ Smoking%20Survey%20Presentation.ppt)
8. Fidan, F., Sezer, M., Demirel, R., Kara, Z. ve Ünlü, M. (2006). Öğretmenlerin sigara içme durumu ve sigara yasağı karşısındaki tutumları. Toraks Dergisi, 7(3), 196- 199.

9. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
10. Gözütok, D. (1999). Teachers’ ethical behaviors. Presented in The Third International Conference on Teacher Education. June 27-July 1, Beit Berl Collage, Isreal.
11. Güçlü, A. (2010). Okul önünde sigara içen öğretmenler kötü örnek oluyor. Retrieved from http://www.abbasguclu.com.tr/haber/okul_onlerinde_sigara_icen_ ogretmenler_kotu_ornek_oluyor.html.
12. Hetland, J., Hetland, H., Mykletun, R.J., AAro, L.E., & Matthiesen, S.B. (2008). Employees’ job satisfaction after the introduction of a total smoke-ban in bars and restaurants in Norway. Health Promotion International, 23(4), 302-310.
13. Kalaycı, Ş. (2009). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil.
14. Sayılı Kanun Hükümlerinin Uygulanması. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR/belge/1-8752/4207-sayili-tutun-urunlerinin- zararlarinin-onlenmesi-ve-.html
15. Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E.S. ve Çinko, M. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi. İstanbul: BETA.
16. Trinidad, D.R., Gilpin, E.A. & Pierce, J.P. (2005). Compliance and support for smoke-free school policies. Health Education Research Theory & Practice, 20(4), 466-475.
17. Tunç, Z. (2007). Edirne’de öğretmenlerin sigara içme ve bırakma davranışları ve etkileyen faktörler. Uzmanlık Tezi, Trakya Üniversitesi.
18. Wold, B., Torsheim, T., Currie, C. & Roberts, C., (2004). National and school policies on restrections of teacher smoking: a multilevel analysis of student exposure to teacher smoking in seven european countries. Health Education Research Theory & Practice, 19(3), 217-226.