İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 17 Sayı: Supplement 1, 167 - 177

Ayşegül Anayurt , İlhan Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1651950

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada; bireyin mevcut ilişkisindeki ilişki kalitesiyle ilgili algısını değerlendirmek için geliştirilmiş olan İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin Türk kültürüne uyarlaması yapılarak ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Yöntem: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri 371 (%62.8 kadın, %37.2 erkek) katılımcıyla yapılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak; Demografik Bilgi Formu, İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği ve İlişki Doyum Ölçeği’nden yararlanılmıştır. Uyarlama sürecinde dilsel eşdeğerlik analizinden sonra geçerlik aşamasına geçilmiştir. Geçerlik analizleri; yapı ve benzer ölçek geçerliğiyle test edilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği sürecinde Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi’nden (DFA) yararlanılmıştır. Benzer ölçek geçerliğini değerlendirmek için İlişki Doyum Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin güvenirlik analizleri; Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı ve test tekrar test yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: DFA sonuçlarının 25 serbestlik derecesinde χ2 değeri 71.31, χ2 /df= 2.85, RMSEA= 0.071, GFI= 0.96, CFI=0.99, NFI=0.99, AGFI= 0.93 ve SRMR= 0.021’dir. Maddelerin faktör yük değerlerinin .63 ile .89 arasında olduğu belirlenmiştir. DFA, İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin tek boyutlu ve 9 maddeden oluştuğu yapıyı doğrulamaktadır. İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği ile İlişki Doyumu arasında .89 düzeyinde pozitif yüksek düzeyde manidar bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Güvenirlik analizinde; Cronbach Alfa katsayısı .93 şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Test tekrar test güvenirlik analiz sonucu 0.95 şeklinde gözlenmektedir.
Sonuç: Yapılan analizler; İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin bireylerin mevcut ilişkileriyle ilgili ilişki kalitesi durumunu ölçebilecek düzeyde psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu ve ilgili alanyazında kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ilişki kalitesi , ölçek uyarlama , geçerlik , güvenirlik

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın, özgün bir çalışma olduğunu; çalışmanın hazırlık, veri toplama, analiz ve bilgilerin sunumu olmak üzere tüm aşamalarından bilimsel etik ilke ve kurallarına uygun davrandığımı; bu çalışma kapsamında elde edilmeyen tüm veri ve bilgiler için kaynak gösterdiğimi ve bu kaynaklara kaynakçada yer verdiğimi; kullanılan verilerde herhangi bir değişiklik yapmadığımı, gerekli etik görev ve sorumluluklara riayet ettiğimi beyan ederim. Herhangi bir zamanda, çalışmayla ilgili yaptığım bu beyana aykırı bir durumun saptanması durumunda, ortaya çıkacak tüm ahlaki ve hukuki sonuçlara razı olduğumu bildiririm. Bu çalışma birinci yazarın doktora tezinin bir bölümünden üretilmiştir.

Turkish Adaptation of Relationship Quality Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

Objective: The purpose of this study is to adapt to psychometric properties of the Relationship Quality Scale which was developed to evaluate the individual's perception of relationship quality in the current relationship, to Turkish culture.
Method: Validity and reliability analyses were analyzed with 371 participants (62.8% female, 37.2% male). Demographic Information Form, Relationship Quality Scale and The Relationship Assessment Scale were used as data collection tools. After the linguistic equivalence analysis of the scale, the validity analysis was started. Validity analyses were tested with construct and convergent validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was utilized in the construct validity process. The Relationship Assessment Scale was used to convergent validity. Reliability analyses of the Relationship Quality Scale were evaluated with Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficient and test-retest methods.
Results: The CFA results were found to be χ2 value 71.31, χ2 /df= 2.85, RMSEA= 0.071, GFI= 0.96, CFI=0.99, NFI=0.99, AGFI= 0.93 and SRMR= 0.021 at 25 degrees of freedom. The factor loadings of the items were found to be between .63 and .89. CFA validated the unidimensional and 9-item structure of the Relationship Quality Scale. A positive and highly significant relationship was found between the Relationship Quality Scale and the Relationship Assessment Scale at the level of .89. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was determined as .93. The test-retest reliability analysis result was 0.95.
Conclusion: The Relationship Quality Scale has psychometric properties at a level that can measure the relationship quality status of individuals regarding their current relationships and can be used in the relevant literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Relationship quality , scale adaptation , validity , reliability

Kaynakça

• Amato PR, James S (2010) Divorce in Europe and the United States: Commonalities and differences across nations. Fam Sci, 1:2-13.
• Anayurt A (2023) Okul öncesi dönemde çocuğu olan bireylerin anababalık davranışlarının belirleyicileri (Doktora tezi). Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi.
• Araz A, Güngör D, Aşçı, E (2019) Turkish adaptation of the Positive–Negative Relationship Quality (PN-RQ) Scale: A reliability and validity study. Behav Sci (Basel), 9:100.
• Argyle M (2001) The Psychology of Happiness. London, Routledge.
• Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull, 117:497-529.
• Beach SRH, Katz J, Kim S, Brody GH (2003) Prospective effects of marital satisfaction on depressive symptoms in established marriages: A dyadic model. J Soc Pers Relat, 20:355-371.
• Blom N, Perelli-Harris B, Wiik KA (2023) Relationship quality and family formation in Europe. Adv Life Course Res, 55:100527.
• Bradbury TN, Fincham FD, Beach SRH (2000) Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. J Marriage Fam, 62:964-980.
• Braithwaite SR, Delevi R, Fincham FD (2010) Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Pers Relatsh, 17:1-12.
• Büyüköztürk Ş (2002) Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32:470-483.
• Cepukiene V (2019) Does relationship satisfaction always mean satisfaction? Development of the Couple Relationship Satisfaction Scale. J Relatsh Res, 10:e14.
• Chonody JM, Gabb J, Killian M, Dunk-West P (2016) Understanding everyday relationship work: The development of a relationship maintenance scale. Adv Soc Work, 17:355-368.
• Chonody JM, Gabb J, Killian M, Dunk-West P (2018) Measuring relationship quality in an international study: Exploratory and confirmatory factor validity. Res Soc Work Pract, 28:920-930.
• Chonody JM, Gabb J (2019) Understanding the role of relationship maintenance in enduring couple partnerships in later adulthood. Marriage Fam Rev, 55:216-238.
• Creswell JW (2005) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, Pearson.
• Curun F (2001) The effects of sexism and sex role orientation on romantic relationship satisfaction (Yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara, Middle East Technical University.
• Dagger TS, Danaher PJ, Gibbs BJ (2009) How often versus how long: The interplay of contact frequency and relationship duration in customer-reported service relationship strength. J Serv Res, 11:371-388.
• Day RD, Hair E, Moore K, Kaye K, Orthner DK (2009) Marital Quality and Outcomes for Children And Adolescents: A Review of the Family Process Literature. Washington DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Farooqi SF (2014) The construct of relationship quality. J Relatsh Res, 5:e2.
• Field A (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London, Sage.
• Fincham FD, Bradbury TN (1987) The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. J Marriage Fam, 49:797-809.
• Fincham FD, Rogge R (2010) Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. J Fam Theory Rev, 2: 227-242.
• Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Thomas G (2000) The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 26:340-354.
• Fowers BJ, Olson DH (1986) Predicting marital success with Prepare: A predictive validity study. J Marital Fam Ther, 12:403-413.
• Fowers BJ, Montel KH, Olson DH (1996) Predicting marital success for premarital couple types based on Prepare. J Marital Fam Ther, 22:103-119.
• Funk JL, Rogge RD (2007) Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. J Fam Psychol, 21:572-583.
• Galliher RV, Welsh DP, Rostosky SS, Kawaguchi MC (2004) Interaction and relationship quality in late adolescent romantic couples. J Soc Pers Relat, 21:203-216.
• Goodboy AK, Martin MM (2020) Omega over alpha for reliability estimation of unidimensional communication measures. Ann Int Commun Assoc, 44:422-439.
• Graham JM, Liu YJ, Jeziorski JL (2006) The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam, 68: 701-717.
• Graham JM, Diebels KJ, Barnow ZB (2011) The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalisation meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol, 25:39-48.
• Harrington D (2009) Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Hassebrauck M, Fehr B (2002) Dimensions of relationship quality. Pers Relatsh, 9:253-270.
• Hendrick SS (1988) A Generic measure of relationship satisfaction. J Marriage Fam, 50:93-98.
• Heyman RE, Sayers SL, Bellack AS (1994) Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. J Fam Psychol, 8:432-446.
• Jardine BB, Vannier S, Voyer D (2022) Emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pers Individ Dif, 196:111713.
• Johnson DR (1995) Assessing marital quality in longitudinal and life course studies. In Family Assessment (Eds JC Conoley, EB Werth):155-202. Lincoln, University of Nebraska.
• Kılıç S (2016) Cronbach’ın Alfa güvenirlik katsayısı. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6:47-48.
• Kılınçer AS, Tuzgöl Dost M (2013) Romantik İlişkiyi Değerlendirme Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 4:15-32.
• Kline RB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York, Guilford Press.
• Körner R, Murphy BA, Zverling E, Sha’ked A, Schütz A (2024). Dominance and prestige in romantic relationships: Actor and partner links to relationship quality. J Soc Pers Relat, 41:302-332.
• Lawrence E, Brock RL, Barry RA, Langer A, Bunde M (2009) Assessing relationship quality: Development of an interview and implications for couple assessment and intervention. In Psychology of Relationships (Eds E Cuyler, M Ackhart):173-189. New York, Nova Publishers.
• Le B, Dove NL, Agnew CR, Korn MS, Mutso AA (2010) Predicting non-marital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Pers Relatsh, 17:377-390.
• Lee T (2023) Attunement and relationship quality in couple relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Santa Barbara, CA, Fielding Graduate University.
• Lewandowski GW, Jr Nardone N, Raines AJ (2010) The role of self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self Identity, 9:416-433.
• Li T, Fung HH (2011) The dynamic goal theory of marital satisfaction. Rev Gen Psychol, 15:246-254.
• Locke HJ, Wallace KM (1959) Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage Fam Living, 21:251-255.
• Meuwly N, Bodenmann G, Coyne JC (2012) The association between partners’ expressed emotion and depression: Mediated by patients’ dysfunctional attitudes. J Soc Clin Psychol, 31: 690-706.
• Meyer DD, Jones M, Rorer A, Maxwell K (2015) Examining the associations among attachment, affective state, and romantic relationship quality. Fam J, 23:18-25.
• Morry MM, Reich T, Kito M (2010) How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of selfand partner-enhancement within cross-sex friendships, dating relationships, and marriages. J Soc Psychol, 150:369-392.
• Myers DG, Diener E (1995) Who is happy? Psychol Sci, 6:10-19.
• Myers D (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy people. Am Psychol, 55, 56-67.
• Nunes C, Ferreira LI, Martins C, Pechorro P, Ayala-Nunes L (2022) The enrich marital satisfaction scale: Adaptation and psychometric properties among at-risk and community Portuguese parents. J Soc Pers Relat, 39:3275-3295.
• Özgüven İE (1994) Psikolojik Testler. Ankara, Yeni Doğuş Matbaası.
• Russell RJH, Wells, PA (1994) Predictors of happiness in married couples. Pers Individ Diff, 17:313-321.
• Rust J, Bennun I, Crowe M, Golombok S (1990) The GRIMS: A psychometric instrument for the assessment of marital discord. J Fam Ther, 12:45-57.
• Schumm WR, Nichols CW, Schectman KL, Grigsby CC (1983) Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychol Rep, 53:567-572.
• Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W (2011) Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract, 17:268-274.
• Spanier GB (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam, 38:15-28.
• Sun L, Canevello A, Lewis KA, Li J, Crocker J (2021) Childhood emotional maltreatment and romantic relationships: The role of compassionate goals. Front Psychol, 12:723126.
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. New York, Pearson.
• Tavşancıl E (2005) Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Uchino BN, Cacioppo JT, Kiecolt-Glaser JK (1996) The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychol Bull, 119:488-531.
• Vaillant GE (2012) Positive mental health: Is there a cross-cultural definition? World Psychiatry, 11:93-99.
• Van den Brink F, Vollmann M, Smeets MAM, Hessen DJ, Woertman L (2018) Relationships between body image, sexual satisfaction, and relationship quality in romantic couples. J Fam Psychol, 32:466-474.