Çok boyutlu örgütsel kimlik ölçeği geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması

Yıl 2021, , 228 - 243, 08.01.2021

Fatih Çetin , Muhammet Ali Çelebi

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.737996

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Stoner, Perrewé, ve Hofacker (2011) tarafından geliştirilen Çok Boyutlu Örgütsel Kimlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması, geçerliliğinin ve güvenilirliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada üniversitelerde görev yapan akademisyenlerden oluşan iki farklı örneklem (n=121 ve n=518) kullanılmıştır. Toplanan verilerle yapılan analiz sonucunda ölçeğin alt boyutlarının Cronbach alfa güvenilirlik katsayılarının birinci örneklem için .71 ile .86 arasında, ikinci örneklem için .73 ve .84 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Ölçeğin kendi kendine kategorizasyon, uyum/örtüşme düzeyi, duygusal bağlılık ve davranışsal katılım olmak üzere dört faktörlü yapısı her iki örneklemde yapılan faktör analizleriyle doğrulanmış, farklı yapılarla öngörülen ilişkiler ölçüt bağımlı geçerlilik analiziyle desteklenmiştir. Ayrıca ölçeğin cinsiyet açısında yapısal ve ölçümsel olarak ayrışmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Söz konusu bu bulgular, Çok Boyutlu Örgütsel Kimlik Ölçeği’nin Türkiye’de yapılacak çalışmalarda güvenilir ve geçerli bir araç olarak uygulanabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Örgütsel Kimlik, Ölçek Uyarlama, Geçerlilik, Güvenilirlik, Türk Kültürü

The validity and reliability study of multi-dimensional identification scale

Öz

The purpose of this study is to conduct the adaptation of the Multi-Dimensional Identification Scale, developed by Stoner, Perrewé, ve Hofacker (2011), into Turkish culture, and to explore the validity and reliability of the scale. Two different academic samples (n=121 and n=518) from public and private universities were employed for the research. The results indicated that the Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of the sub-dimensions of the scale range between .86 to .71 and .73 to .84 for the first and second samples respectively. The sub-dimensions as self-categorization, goodness of fit, affective-attachment and behavioral involvement were confirmed with factor analyses applied on both samples. Concurrent validity was provided using different structures for the anticipated relations. Moreover, the adapted scale presented the structural and measurement invariance in terms of gender. All these findings revealed that the adapted version of the Multi-Dimensional Identification Scale is a valid and reliable instrument, and can be used in the studies for the Turkish culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational Identification, Scale Adaptation, Validity, Reliability

Kaynakça

• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In J. F. Dovidio M. Hewstone & P. Glick (Ed.), In The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 179–193). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200919.n11
• Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., Barker, J. R., Dukerich, J. M., Elsbach, K. D., Glynn, M. A., … Parks, J. M. (1998). Identification with organizations. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations (pp. 209–272). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231495.n7
• Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. The Academy of Management Review Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259260
• Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.ObO13e31812e5535
• Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An Organizing framework for collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K.-H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence : The role of compliance , internalization , and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3), 226–247. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/3090121
• Balcı, A., Baltacı, A., Fidan, T., Cereci, C. ve Acar, U. (2012).Örgütsel sosyalleşmenin, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve örgütsel vatandaşlıkla ilişkisi: İlköğretim okulu yöneticileri üzerinde bir araştırma. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2),47–74. Erişim adresi: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9294/ab2e0b911e7cc99b91aff33d9a476c73af10.pdf
• Brickson, S. (2000). The Impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/259264
• Brislin, R. W. (1986). The Wording and translation of research ınstruments. In J. W. Lonner, W. J., & Berry (Ed.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research (pp. 137–164). SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Çetin, F., & Çelebi, M. A. (2019). Bireysel performansta sosyal kimlik bileşenleri ve davranışsal katılımın rolü: akademisyenler üzerine bir araştırma. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.531294
• Deschamps, J., & Devos, T. (1998). Regarding the relationship between social identity and personal identity. In In S. WorchelJ. F. Morales & D. Páez (Eds.), Social identity: International Perspectives (pp. 2–12). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446279205.n1.
• Dimmock, J. A., Grove, J. R., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Reconceptualizing team identification: New dimensions and their relationship to intergroup bias. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.2.75
• Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U
• Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations the social identity approach. In Society (Second Edi). London: SAGE Publications.
• Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259266
• Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/152988602317232777
• Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Cognitive and affective identification : Exploring identification and personality with work attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1142–1167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.l787
• Jones, C., & Volpe, E. H. (2011). Organizational identification: Extending our understanding of social identities through social networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 413–434. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41415676
• Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A Partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(13), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
• Mamatoğlu, N. (2008). Öğretmenlerde kimliklenme ve kimliklenmenin işe yönelik tutum ve algıları yordayıcılığı. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 11(22), 47-62.
• Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. G. (1993). Tailored meanings: On the meaning and impact of organizational dress. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/258822
• Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A Stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/259262
• Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: Examining the relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, 5(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(00)00011-0
• Stoner, J., Perrewé, P. L., & Hofacker, C. (2011). The Development and validation of the multi-dimensional identification scale (MDIS). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1632–1658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00770.x
• Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1985) The Social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G., Eds., , 2nd Edition, Nelson Hall, Chicago, 7–24.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A Self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its Value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015167
• Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000889