Eğitim Örgütlerinde Grup İçi Bağlılık: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2, 116 - 131, 22.08.2022

Ahmet Yurdakul Kazım Çelik

https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.950409

Öz

Bu çalışmada öğretmenlerin grup içi bağlılık düzeylerini ölçmek üzere eğitim örgütleri için “Grup İçi Bağlılık Ölçeği”nin geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, 2019-2020 eğitim-öğretim yılında Uşak il merkezinde görev yapan 320 öğretmenden elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlik çalışması kapsamında açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış (AFA) ve sonuçlar doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. Boyutların ilişkisini belirlemek amacıyla boyutlar arası korelasyon analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirliğinin belirlenmesi adına çalışmada Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı belirlenmiş ve madde-toplam puan korelasyonları incelenmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen analizler sonucu geliştirilen ölçeğin üç faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçek maddelerinin faktör yük değerleri 0,49 ile 0,76, madde-toplam korelasyonları 0,30 ile 0,76, güvenirlik katsayıları ise 0,70 ile 0,80 arasında değişmektedir. Geliştirilen ölçeğin, öğretmenlerin grup içi bağlılıklarını ölçmek adına geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

grup içi bağlılık, grup içi bağlılık ölçeği, ölçek geliştirme

Destekleyen Kurum

Pamukkale Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi

Proje Numarası

2018 EĞBE009

Group Cohesion In Educational Organizations: A Scale Development Study

Öz

: In this study, it was aimed to develop “Group Cohesion Scale” to measure the perceptions of teachers about their group cohesion. In order to reach this aim, data obtained from 320 teachers working in the city center of Uşak in the 2019-2020 academic year were analyzed. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done on the scale as part of the validity investigation. Next, the factor structure generated as a result of the EFA was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and interdimensional correlation analyses. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was estimated and item-total score correlations were investigated in the scale's reliability research. As a result of the analyses, it was revealed that the scale has a three-factor structure. The factor load values of the items in the scale were between 0.49 and 0.76, item-total correlations were 0.30 to 0.76, and the reliability coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.80. In conclusion, it can be said that that the scale is a valid and reliable measurement instrument for measuring teachers' group cohesion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

group cohesion, group cohesion scale, scale development

Proje Numarası

2018 EĞBE009

Kaynakça

• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173.
• Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86.
• Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small group research, 31(1), 71-88.
• Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in Sport Groups: Interpretations and Considerations. Journal of Sport psychology, 4(2), 123-138.
• Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small group research, 31(1), 89-106.
• Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of sport psychology, 7(3), 244-266.
• Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. Group dynamics: Research and theory, 91, 109.
• Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379-405.
• Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23(2), 242-250.
• Dyce, J. A., & Cornell, J. (1996). Factorial validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire among musicians. The Journal of social psychology, 136(2), 263-264.
• Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). The spatial ecology of group formation. Social pressure in informal groups, 141-161.
• Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57(6), 546-564.
• Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Janis, I. L., & Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (Vol. 349). Boston:
• Houghton Mifflin. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
• Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
• 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(3), 391.
• McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2002). Cohesion and membership duration: linking groups, relations and individuals in an ecology of affiliation. In Advances in group processes (pp. 1-36). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 107.
• Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 210.
• Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (çok değişkenli analizler). Kaan Kitabevi, Eskişehir.
• Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage.
• Pullant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Philadelphia, PA Open University Pres.
• Roberts, J. K., & Henson, R. K. (2001). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a New Measure of Teacher Efficacy: Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale.
• Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015). Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human factors, 57(3), 365-374.
• Salisbury, W. D., Carte, T. A., & Chidambaram, L. (2006). Cohesion in virtual teams: validating the perceived cohesion scale in a distributed setting. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 37(2-3), 147-155.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, S., & Çinko, M. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayım Dağıtım
• Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Sports Dynamics.ıtım.
• Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., Intachote‐Sakamoto, R., & Boripuntakul, T. (2013). The group cohesiveness scale (GCS) for psychiatric inpatients. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 49(1), 58-64.
• Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group- related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(3), 387-399.
• Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4), 547-558.