PSİKOLOJİDE ÇİFT ÇALIŞMALARINDA VE EŞLENİK ÖRNEKLEMLERDE BAĞIMSIZ OLMAMA ÖLÇÜMÜ

Öz

Eşlenik örneklemlerde çiftlerin bireylerini bağımsız değerlendirmek bireysel bir yaklaşımdır. Ancak çiftlerden bahsedildiğinde, bireylerin birbirinden bağımsız olamayacağı kabul edilmeli ve çiftsel bir yaklaşım benimsenmelidir. Literatürde bu sayıltı "bağımsız olmama" (nonindependence) olarak tanımlanır. Çift çalışmaları literatüründe çoğunlukla göz ardı edilen konulardan biri, bağımsız olmama derecesinin raporlanmasıdır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı öncelikle çiftsel yaklaşımlarda değişken türlerini tanımlamak ve ardından olası değişken türlerinin kombinasyonları ile çift çalışmalarında bağımsız olmama derecelerinin nasıl hesaplanacağına ilişkin örnekleri bir bütün halinde derlemektir. Bu bağlamda sırasıyla; çiftler içi bir tane bağımsız değişkenin olduğu, çiftler içi birden çok bağımsız değişkenin olduğu, karışık bağımsız değişkenlerin olduğu, çiftler arası bir tane bağımsız değişkenin olduğu ve çiftler arası birden çok bağımsız değişkenin olduğu senaryolarda bağımsız olmama derecelerinin nasıl ölçüleceğine dair örnekler sunulmuştur. Çiftler içi bağımsız değişkenlerle çalışıldığında, bağımsız olmamayı ölçmek için korelasyon ve kısmi korelasyon katsayılarını göz önünde bulundurmak önerilmiştir. Çiftler içi bağımsız değişken olmadığı durumlarda ise karışık bağımsız değişkenler için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısının kullanımı, çiftler arası bağımsız değişkenler için ise kısmi sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısının kullanımı bağımsız olmama ölçümü için işaret edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ayırt edilebilir çiftler
• ayırt edilemez çiftler
• çiftler arası değişken
• çiftler içi değişken
• çiftsel veri analizi
• yakın ilişkiler

Measurement of Nonindependence in Dyad Studies and Paired Samples in Psychology

Öz

In paired samples, assessing partners independently reflects an individual approach. However, when discussing couples, it must be acknowledged that individuals are not independent, and a dyadic approach should be adopted. In the literature, this assumption is referred to as "nonindependence." One often overlooked aspect in the field of dyadic studies in psychology is the reporting of the degree of nonindependence. The primary aim of this study is to define variable types within dyadic approaches and to compile examples that illustrate how to calculate degrees of nonindependence based on possible combinations of these variable types. In this context, examples are provided for scenarios with one independent variable within-dyads, multiple independent variables within-dyads, mixed independent variables, one independent variable between-dyads, and multiple independent variables between-dyads. When working with independent variables within-dyads, it is recommended to use correlation and partial correlation coefficients to measure nonindependence. In cases where there are no independent variables within-dyads, the intraclass correlation coefficient is suggested for mixed independent variables, while the partial intraclass correlation coefficient is recommended for measuring nonindependence between-dyads.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• between-dyads variable
• close relationships
• distinguishable dyads
• dyadic data analysis
• indistinguishable dyads
• within-dyads variable

Kaynakça

1. Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 18(3), 91-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
2. Alferes, V. R. ve Kenny, D. A. (2009). SPSS programs for the measurement of nonindependence in standard dyadic designs. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.47
3. Allinson, C. W., Armstrong, S. J. ve Hayes, J. (2001). The effects of cognitive style on leader‐member exchange: A study of manager‐subordinate dyads. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(2), 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167316
4. Becker, H. ve Useem, R. H. (1942). Sociological analysis of the dyad. American Sociological Review, 7(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086253
5. Bobak, C. A., Barr, P. J. ve O’Malley, A. J. (2018). Estimation of an inter-rater intra-class correlation coefficient that overcomes common assumption violations in the assessment of health measurement scales. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0550-6
6. Campbell, L. ve Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user–friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00023
7. Charness, G., Gneezy, U. ve Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81 (1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009
8. Cook, W. L. ve Kenny, D. A. (2005). The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

9. Crouch, A. ve Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90047-7
10. Darlington, R. B. ve Hayes, A. F. (2017). Regression Analysis and Linear Models: Concepts, Applications and Implementation (2. Baskı). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12050
11. Feng, X., Shaw, D. S., Skuban, E. M. ve Lane, T. (2007). Emotional exchange in mother-child dyads: stability, mutual influence, and associations with maternal depression and child problem behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.714
12. Gonzalez, R. ve Griffin, D. (1999). The correlational analysis of dyad‐level data in the distinguishable case. Personal Relationships, 6(4), 449-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00203.x
13. Healey, D. M., Gopin, C. B., Grossman, B. R., Campbell, S. B. ve Halperin, J. M. (2010). Mother–child dyadic synchrony is associated with better functioning in hyperactive/inattentive preschool children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(9), 1058-1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02220.x
14. Keith, Z. K. (2015). Multiple Regression and Beyond: An Introduction to Multiple Regression and Structural Equation Modeling (2. Baskı). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162348
15. Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 13(2), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596132007
16. Kenny, D. A. (2018). Reflections on the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12240
17. Kenny, D. A. ve Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x
18. Kenny, D. A. ve Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.422
19. Kenny, D. A. ve Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, Measuring, and Testing Dyadic Patterns in the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651 Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A. ve Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.
20. Koo, T. K. ve Li, M. Y. (2000). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15 (2), 155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
21. Ledermann, T. ve Kenny, D. A. (2015). A toolbox with programs to restructure and describe dyadic data. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(8), 997-1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514555273
22. Liljequist, D., Elfving, B. ve Skavberg Roaldsen, K. (2019). Intraclass correlation–A discussion and demonstration of basic features. PloS one, 14(7), e0219854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219854
23. Malloy, T. E. ve Albright, L. (2001). Multiple and Single Interaction Dyadic Research Designs: Conceptual and Analytic Issues. Basıca And Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2301_1
24. Mustanski, B., Starks, T. ve Newcomb, M. E. (2014). Methods for the design and analysis of relationship and partner effects on sexual health. Archives of sexual behavior, 43, 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0215-9
25. Pesonen, A., Räikkönen, K. ve Heinonen, K. (2006). Depressive vulnerability in parents and their 5-year-old child’s temperament: A family system perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.648
26. Peterson, B. D., Pirritano, M., Christensen, U. ve Schmidt, L. (2008). The impact of partner coping in couples experiencing infertility. Human Reproduction, 23(5), 1128–1137. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den067
27. Rowntree, D. (2018). Statistics without tears: An Introduction for non-mathematicians. Penguin UK . Schober, P., Boer, C. ve Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
28. Wilson, S. ve Durbin, C. E. (2013). Mother-child and father-child dyadic interaction: Parental and child bids and responsiveness to each other during early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59(3), 249-279. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.59.3.0249