SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS SCALE: A STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 21, 65 - 78, 10.10.2013

Ahmet Akın Seydi Ahmet Satıcı

Öz

This study investigated the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper 1999). The sample of study consists of 340 university students. Results of language equivalency showed that the correlations between Turkish and English forms ranged from .72 to .82. Results of exploratory factor analysis showed that the 4 items loaded on one factor. The total variance explained was 46% and factor loadings ranged from .34 to .84. Fit index values of the model were RMSEA=.000, NFI=.99, CFI=1.00, IFI=1.00,
RFI=.98, GFI=1.00, AGFI=.99 and SRMR=.015. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the scale was found as .86 and the test-retest reliability coefficient was found as .73. Also the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .55 to .76. These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

Subjective Happiness, validity, reliability

ÖZNEL MUTLULUK ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Öznel Mutluluk Ölçeği’nin (ÖMÖ; Lyubomirsky & Lepper,
1999) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma 340
üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında,
ÖMÖ’nün Türkçe ve orijinal formlarında bulunan maddeler arasındaki korelasyon
katsayıları .72 ile .82 arasında bulunmuştur. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde 4
maddenin toplam varyansın %46’sını açıkladığı ve maddelerin tek boyutta
toplandığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin faktör yükleri .34 ile .84, madde toplam
korelasyonu puanları ise .55 ile .76 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör
analizinde tek boyutlu modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (RMSEA=.000,
NFI=.99, CFI=1.00, IFI=1.00, RFI=.98, GFI=1.00, AGFI=.99 ve SRMR=.015). ÖMÖ’nün
iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayısı .86, test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı ise .73
olarak bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar ÖMÖ’nün Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir
bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öznel Mutluluk, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Kaynakça

• BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK. Ş. (2004). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş., AKGÜN, Ö., KAHVECİ, Ö., & DEMİREL, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 207- 239.
• COHEN, S. B. (2002). Happiness and the immune system. Positive Health, 82 , 9–
• COSTA, P. T. JR., & MCCRAE, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.
• CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
• DIENER, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal of a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
• DIENER, E., & SELİGMAN, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81–84.
• DIENER, E., SUH, E. M., SMITH, H., & SHAO, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective wellbeing: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 7–32.
• EMMONS, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1058-1068.
• HEADEY, B., & WEARING, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective wellbeing: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731-739.
• HU, L. T., & BNETLER, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
• JOUBERT, C. E. (1992). Happiness, time consciousness, and subjective life expectancy. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 74 , 649–650.
• JUSTER, F. T., & F. P. STAFFORD (eds.): 1985, Time, Goods, and Weil-Being (Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI).
• LE, T. N., LAI, M. H., & WALLEN, J. (2009). Multiculturalism and subjective happiness as mediated by cultural and relational variables, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(3), 303–313.
• LEMON, B. W., BENGSTON, V. L., & PETERSON, J. A. (1972). An exploration of the activity theory of aging: Activity types and life satisfaction among in- movers to a retirement community. Journal of Gerontology 27, 511-523.
• LYUBOMIRSKY, S., & LEPPER, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 37–155.
• LYUBOMIRSKY, S., & TUCKER, K. L. (1998). Implications of ındividual differences in subjective happiness for perceiving, ınterpreting, and thinking about life events. Motivation and Emotion, 22(2), 155-186.
• MARKUS, H. R., & KITAYAMA, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
• MATTEI, D., & SCHAEFER, C. E. (2004). An investigation of validity of the Subjective Happiness Scale. Psychological Reports, 94, 288–290.
• MICHALOS, A. C. (1985). Multiple Discrepancy Theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research 16, 347-413.
• MYERS, D. G., & DIENER, E. (1995). 'Who is happy?. Psychological Science, 6, 10- 19.
• OMODEI, M. M., & WEARING, A. J. (1990). Need satisfaction and involvement in personal projects: Toward an integrative model of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 762-769.
• RYFF, C. D., & KEYES, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.
• SCHIFFRIN, H. H., & NELSON, S. K. (2010). Stressed and happy? Investigating the relationship between happiness and perceived stress. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 33–39.
• SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (2003). Positive psychology: Fundamental assumptions. Psychologist, 16, 126–127.
• SHIMAI, S., OTAKE, K., UTSUKI, N., IKEMI, A., & LYUBOMIRSKY, S. (2004). Development of a Japanese version of the subjective happiness scale (SHS), and examination of its validity and reliability. Japanese Journal of Public Health, 51, 1–9.
• SUH, E., DIENER, E., OISHI, S., & TRIANDIS, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.
• SWAMI, V. (2008). Translation and validation of the malay subjective happiness scale. Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 347–353.
• SWAMI, V., STIEGER, S., VORACEK, M., DRESSLER, S. G., EISMA, L., & FURNHAM, A. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the tagalog and german subjective happiness scales and a cross-cultural comparison. Social Indicators Research, 93, 393–406.
• TEZBAŞARAN, A. A. (1996). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
• TKACH, C., & LYUBOMIRSKY, S. (2006). How do people pursue happıness? Relatıng personalıty, happıness-ıncreasıng strategıes, and well-beıng. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 183–225.
• UCHIDA, Y., NORASAKKUNKIT, V., & KITAYAMA, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223–239.
• VEENHOVEN, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–
• ZIMET, G.D., DAHLEM, N.W., ZIMET, S.G. & FARLEY, G.K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41.