San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE): Adaptation, validity and reliability study

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE), which measures the wisdom of individuals. SD-WISE, Thomas et al. Developed by in 2019. In order to adapt the SD-WISE to Turkish culture, the English-Turkish translation of the scale was made by three faculty members from the field of Guidance and Psychological Counseling, with the permission of the author. The Turkish form, which was created from the translations made by three experts, was translated back into English by three different faculty members who are experts in the field. The conformity of the translation was checked by comparing the post-translation form with the original English form. Then, the created form was applied to a group of 127 people and the language and comprehensibility of the expressions in the scale were tested. This study was conducted with the participation of 221 individuals aged 16-56 years. The validity of the Turkish form of the scale was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices obtained as a result of DFA (χ2(237) = 404.96, χ2/sd= 1.71, GFI=.87, CFI= .93, IFI=.93, NNFI=.92 SRMR=.071 and RMSEA=.057) shows that the six-factor model (Social Advising, Decisiveness, Pro-Social Behaviors, Emotional Regulation, Tolerance for Divergent Values and Insight) defined for the original factor structure of the scale was confirmed. In order to determine the reliability level of the scale, Cronbach Alpha values for the whole scale and its sub-dimensions and item total correlation values for the items were calculated and test-retest analysis was performed. The Cronbach α reliability coefficient was calculated between .82 for the combined scale and between .47 and .71 for the subscales. Test-retest reliability correlation values for the sub-dimensions of the scale ranged from 0.71 to 0.79. With the findings obtained, it has been revealed that this scale is a measurement tool that can be used in determining the wisdom levels of individuals between the ages of 16-56 in Turkey and makes measurements with high reliability and validity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• wisdom
• scale
• validty
• reliability

San Diego Bilgelik Ölçeği: Uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı San Diego Bilgelik Ölçeği’nin (SDBÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanmasıdır. SDBÖ, Thomas vd. tarafından 2019 yılında geliştirilmiştir. SDBÖ’nin Türkçeye uyarlanabilmesi için öncelikle yazardan izin alınmış, ardından ölçek Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışmanlık alanından üç öğretim üyesi tarafından İngilizceden Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. Üç uzman tarafından yapılan çevirilerden oluşturulan Türkçe form, alan uzmanı olan üç farklı öğretim üyesi tarafından tekrar İngilizceye çevrilmiştir. Çeviri sonrası form ile orijinal İngilizce form karşılaştırılarak çeviri uygunluğu kontrol edilmiştir. Daha sonra oluşturulan form 127 kişilik bir gruba uygulanmış ve ölçekteki ifadelerin dil ve anlaşılırlığı test edilmiş ve nihai form oluşturulmuştur. Bu çalışma, 16-56 yaşlarındaki 221 bireyin katılımıyla yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerliliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile incelenmiştir. DFA sonucu elde edilen uyum indeksleri (χ2(237) = 404.96, χ2/sd= 1.71, GFI=.87, CFI= .93, IFI=.93, NNFI=.92 SRMR=.071 ve RMSEA=.057), ölçeğin orijinal faktör yapısına ilişkin tanımlanan altı faktörlü (sosyal danışmanlık, kararlılık, olumlu sosyal davranış, duygusal düzenleme, farklı değerlere tolerans ve içgörü) modelin doğrulandığını göstermektedir. Ölçeğin güvenirlik düzeyini belirlemek için ise tüm ölçek ve alt boyutlara ilişkin Cronbach Alpha değerleri ile maddelere ilişkin madde toplam korelasyon değerleri hesaplanmış ve test tekrar test analizi yapılmıştır. Cronbach α güvenirlik katsayısı birleşik ölçek için .82, alt ölçekler için .47 ile .71 aralığında hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğin alt boyutlarına ilişkin test-tekrar test güvenirlik korelasyon değerleri 0.71 ila 0.79 arasında değişmektedir. Elde edilen bulgularla bu ölçeğin Türkiye’de 16-56 yaş arası bireylerin bilgelik düzeylerinin belirlenmesinde kullanılabilecek, güvenirliği ve geçerliği yüksek ölçmeler yapan bir ölçme aracı olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilgelik
• ölçek
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Ardelt, M. (2000). Antecedents and effects of wisdom in old age—A longitudinal perspective on aging well. Research on Aging, 22(4), 360–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027500224003
2. Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three‐dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25(3), 275–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027503025003004
3. Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical review of a contemporary operationalization of an ancient concept. Human Development, 47, 257–285.
4. Ardelt, M., Pridgen, S., &Nutter-Pridgen, K. L. (2018). The relation between age and three-dimensional wisdom: Variations by wisdom dimensions and education. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73(8), 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx182
5. Aytaç, M. ve Öngen,B. (2012). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yeni çevresel paradigma ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliğinin incelenmesi İstatistikçiler Dergisi: İstatistik ve Aktüerya, 5(1): 14-22.
6. Baltes, P. B.,& Freund, A. M. (2003). Human strength as the orchestration of wisdom and SOC. In U. M. Staudinger & L. Aspinwall (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Perspectives on an emerging field (pp. 23–35). APA Books.
7. Baltes, P. B., Smith, J., & Staudinger, U. M. (1991). Wisdom and successful aging. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 39, 123–167.
8. Baltes, P. B.,&Smith, J. (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00062.x

9. Baltes, P. B.,&Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122–136. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.122.
10. Bangen, K. J., Meeks, T. W.,& Jeste, D. V. (2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: A review of the literature. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1254–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.020
11. Brienza, J. P., Kung, F. Y. H., Santos, H. C., Bobocel, D. R. R., &Grossmann, I. (2018). Wisdom, bias, and balance: Toward a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-related cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 1093–1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000171
12. Brown, S. C., & Greene, J. A. (2008). The wisdom development scale: Translating the conceptual to the concrete. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 1–19.
13. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd Ed.). Guilford Publications
14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016a). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (22. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016b). Deneysel desenler: Öntest-sontest kontrol gruplu desen ve spss uygulamalı veri analizi (Geliştirilmiş 2. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
16. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (20. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
17. Carstensen, L. L.,& Löckenhoff, C. E. (2003). Aging, emotion, and evolution: The bigger picture. In P. Ekman, J. J. Campos, R. J. Davidson, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Emotions inside out: 130 years after Darwin's: The expression of the emotions in man and animals(pp. 152–179). New York Academy of Sciences.
18. Cato, M.A., Delis, D.C., Abildskov, T.J., Bigler, E., (2004). Assessing the elusive cognitive deficits associated with ventromedial prefrontal damage: A case of a modernday Phineas Gage. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 10 (3), 453-465. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617704103123
19. Clayton, V. P., & Birren, J. E. (1980). The development of wisdom across the life span: A reexamination of an ancient topic. P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 103–135). Academic Press.
20. Clayton, V. P. (1975). Erikson’s theory of human development as it applies to the aged: Wisdom as contradictive cognition. Human Development, 18(1-2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271479
21. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: Spss ve lisrel uygulamaları(4. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
22. Ebel, Robert L.(1965). Measuring Educational Achievement. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
23. Ergin, Y. D. (1995). Ölçeklerde geçerlik ve güvenirlik. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7, 125-148.
24. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton.
25. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle,Psychological Issues, 1(1),1-171.
26. Ferrari, M., & Kim, J. (2019). Educating for Wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Gluck (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of wisdom (Vol. 27, pp. 347–371). Cambridge University Press.
27. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). The psychology of good judgment. Medical Decision Making, 16(3), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9601600312
28. Glück, J. (2020). The important difference between psychologists labs and real life: Evaluating the validity of models of wisdom, Psychological Inquiry, 31(2), 144 150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1750909
29. Glück, J.,König, S., Naschenweng, K., Redzanowski, U., Dorner, L., Straßer, I., &Wiedermann, W. (2013). How to measure wisdom: Content, reliability, and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(405), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00405
30. Glück, J., Sternberg, R. J., &Nusbaum, H. C. (2019). Not today, and probably not tomorrow either: Obstacles to wisdom and how we may overcome them. R. J. Sternberg,, H. C. Nusbaum,& J. Glück,(Eds.), Applying wisdom to contemporary world problems(pp. 445–464). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20287-3_16
31. Grossmann, I., Weststrate, N.M., Ardelt, M., Brienza, J. P., Dong, M., Ferrari, M., Fournier, M.A., Hu, C.S., Nusbaum, H.C. & Vervaeke, J. (2020). The science of wisdom in a polarized world: Knowns and unknowns, Psychological Inquiry,31:2, 103-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1750917
32. Grossmann, I. (2017a). Wisdom and how to cultivate it. European Psychologist, 22(4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000302
33. Grossmann, I. (2017b). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616672066
34. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2009).Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.): Prentice-Hall, Inc.
35. Hambleton, R.K. & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-30.
36. Helson, R.,&Srivastava, S. (2002). Creative and wise people: Similarities, differences, and how they develop. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1430–1440. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702236874
37. Hy, L. X.,&Loevinger, J. (2014). Measuring ego development (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
38. Jeste, D. V., Savla, G. N., Thompson, W. K., Vahia, I. V., Glorioso, D. K., Martin, A. S., … Depp, C. A. (2013). Association between older age and more successful aging: Critical role of resilience and depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030386
39. Jeste, D. V.,&Vahia, I. V. (2008). Comparison of the conceptualization of wisdom in ancient Indian literature with modern views: focus on the Bhagavad Gita. Psychiatry, 71, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2008.71.3.197
40. Jeste, D. V., Ardelt, M., Blazer, D., Kraemer, H. C., Vaillant, G,.&Meeks, T. W. (2010). Expert consensus on characteristics of wisdom: A delphi method study. Gerontologist, 50, 668–680. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq022
41. Jeste, D.&Lee, E. E. (2019). Emerging empirical science of wisdom: definition, measurement, neurobiology, longevity, and interventions. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 27(3), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000205
42. Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 47-48.
43. Kramer, D. A. (2000). Wisdom as a classical source of human strength: Conceptualization and empirical inquiry. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 83–101.
44. Kunzmann, U.,& Baltes, P. B. (2003). Wisdom-related knowledge: Affective,motivational, and interpersonal correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1104–1119.
45. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., … Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
46. Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., &Shiraishi, R. W. (2005). Self-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 60(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.2190/XRXM-FYRA-7U0X-GRC0
47. Levesque, R.J.R. (2018). Wisdom.R.J.R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (4118-4121) Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland.
48. Li, S.-C.,& Kunzmann, U. (2004). Research of ıntelligence in german-speaking nations. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), International handbook of the psychology of human intelligence (135–169). Cambridge University Press.
49. Meeks, T. W.,&Jeste, D. V. (2009). Neurobiology of wisdom: A literature overview. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.8
50. Mickler, C.,&Staudinger, U. M. (2008). Personal wisdom: Validation and age-related differences of a performance measure. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013928
51. Obermeyer, Z.,Powers, B., Vogeli, C., &Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342
52. Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (çok değişkenli analizler). Eskişehir: Kaan.
53. Pennebaker, J. W.,& Stone, L. D. (2003). Words of wisdom: Language use over the life span. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 291–301.
54. Perry, C. L.,Komro, K. A., Jones, R. M., Munson, K., Williams, C. L., &Jason, L. (2002). The measurement of wisdom and its relationship to adolescent substance use and problem behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 12(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1300/J029v12n01_03
55. Pew Research Center. (2017). Public trust in government remains near historic lows as partisan attitudes shift. https://www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/public-trust-in-government-remains-near-historic-lows-as-partisan-attitudes-shift/
56. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
57. Roser, M.,& Nagdy, M. (2019). Optimism & pessimism. https://ourworldindata.org/optimism-pessimism.
58. Schank, R. C.,Kass, A., & Riesbeck, C. K. (1994). Inside case-based explanation. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807157
59. Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Moosbrugger, 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.
60. Schmit, D. E.,Muldoon, J., & Pounders, K. (2012). What is wisdom? The development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(2), 39–54.
61. Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci spss ve lisrel uygulamaları. Anı Yayıncılık.
62. Sowarka, D. (1989). Weisheit und weise Personen: Common-Sense-Konzepte aelterer Menschen. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie,21, 87–109.
63. Staudinger, U. M 1996). Wisdom and social interaction. In P. B. Baltes&U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds. Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 276–318). Cambridge University Press.
64. Staudinger, U. M.,Maciel, A. G., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). What predicts wisdom-related performance? A first look at personality, intelligence, and facilitative experiential contexts. European Journal of Personality, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199801/02)12:1%3C1::AID-PER285%3E3.0.CO;2-9
65. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. Cambridge University Press.
66. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology,2(4), 347 –365
67. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
68. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S.(2001). Using multivariatestatistics (5th Ed.) Pearson.
69. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 481- 498). Pearson.
70. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayınları.
71. Thomas, M. L., Bangen, K. J., Ardelt, M., & Jeste, D. V. (2015). Development of a 12‐item abbreviated three‐dimensional wisdom scale (3D‐WS‐12): Item selection and psychometric properties. Assessment, 24(1), 71– 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115595714
72. Thomas, M. L.,Bangen, K. J., Palmer, B. W., Sirkin Martin, A., Avanzino, J. A., Depp, C. A., … Jeste, D. V. (2019). A new scale for assessing wisdom based on common domains and a neurobiological model: The San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 108, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.09.005
73. Webster, J. D., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2014). Wisdom and mental health across the lifespan. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(2), 209– 218. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs121
74. Webster, J. D. (2003). An exploratory analysis of a self-assessed wisdom scale. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020782619051
75. Webster, J. D. (2007). Measuring the character strength of wisdom. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 65(2), 163–183.doi:10.2190/AG.65.2.d.
76. Wink, P.,& Helson, R. (1997). Practical and transcendent wisdom: Their nature and some longitudinal findings. Journal of Adult Development, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02511845
77. Yılmaz, V. & Çelik, H. E. (2009). LISREL ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-1. PegemA.