Beden Eğitiminde Yenilik İhtiyacı Tatmini ve Engellenmesinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmada “Beden Eğitiminde Yenilik İhtiyacı Tatmini ve Engellenmesi Ölçeği”nin (BEYİTEÖ) Türk kültürüne uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda öğrencilerin beden eğitimi ve spor (BES) derslerinde hissettikleri yenilik ihtiyacı deneyimlerini hem yenilik ihtiyaç tatmini (YİT) hem de yenilik ihtiyaç engellenmesi (YİE) boyutlarıyla ölçebilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçeğin Türkiye’de kullanılabilirliği test edilmiştir. Araştırmaya Elazığ ilinde bulunan ve devlet ortaokullarında eğitim gören 446 öğrenci katılmıştır. Uyarlama sürecinin ilk aşamasında dil geçerliği, geri çeviri ve uzman paneli aşamalarından oluşan sistematik bir yol izlenmiştir. Verilerin analizinde yapı geçerliliği için açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) gerçekleştirilmiş, ölçeğin güvenirliğine yönelik kanıt elde etmek için Cronbach alfa (α) ve McDonald’s Omega (ω) katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Ek olarak, yakınsak ve ıraksak geçerlilik AVE, CR, MSV değerleri ve HTMT oranları üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. AFA sonuçları, ölçeğin toplam varyansın %68’ini açıklayan iki faktörlü bir yapı sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. DFA sonuçları, modelin verilerle iyi uyum sağladığını (x2/df=2,65; CFI= 0,96; GFI= 0,94; TLI= 0,95; RMSEA= 0,07; SRMR= 0,05) doğrulamıştır. Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayıları YİT boyutu için 0,92 ve YİE boyutu için 0,83 olarak saptanmıştır. Yakınsak geçerlilik için YİT boyutunda AVE değeri 0,68, CR değeri 0,91 olarak belirlenirken, YİE boyutunda AVE değeri 0,52, CR değeri 0,83 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Iraksak geçerlilik için her iki faktörün AVE değerinin MSV değerinden büyük olduğu görülmüş, ayrıca HTMT oranının (0,387) istenilen düzeyde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Her iki boyutun yeterli yapı geçerliği ve güvenirlik ölçütlerini sağladığı belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, Türk kültürüne uyarlaması yapılan BEYİTEÖ’nün, BES derslerinde ortaokul öğrencilerinin yenilik algılarını ölçmek amacıyla kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilik ihtiyacı tatmini
• Yenilik ihtiyacı engellenmesi
• Beden eğitimi
• Ölçek uyarlama
• Öz-belirleme kuramı

Assessing Novelty Need Satisfaction and Frustration in Physical Education: A Scale Adaptation Study

Öz

In this study, it was aimed to adapt the “Novelty Need Satisfaction and Frustration in Physical Education Scale” (NNSF-PE) to Turkish culture and to determine its psychometric properties. Within this scope, the usability in Turkey of a valid and reliable scale that can measure students’ experiences of need for novelty in physical education and sports (PES) classes in terms of both novelty need satisfaction (NNS) and novelty need frustration (NNF) dimensions was tested. The study included 446 students who were studying in public middle schools in Elazığ province. In the first stage of the adaptation process, a systematic path consisting of linguistic validity, back-translation, and expert panel phases was followed. For data analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted for construct validity, and Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and McDonald’s Omega (ω) coefficients were calculated to obtain evidence regarding the reliability of the scale. Additionally, convergent and discriminant validity were assessed through AVE, CR, MSV values, and HTMT ratios. The EFA results revealed that the scale has a two-factor structure explaining 68% of the total variance. The CFA results confirmed that the model showed good fit with the data (x2/df=2.65; CFI=0.96, GFI=0.94, TLI=0.95, RMSEA=0.07, SRMR=0.05). Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients were found to be 0.92 for the NNS dimension and 0.83 for the NNF dimension. For convergent validity, the AVE value for the NNS dimension was determined as 0.68 and the CR value as 0.91, while for the NNF dimension, the AVE value was calculated as 0.52 and the CR value as 0.83. For discriminant validity, it was observed that the AVE value of both factors was higher than the MSV value, and the HTMT ratio (0.387) was found to be at the desired level. Both dimensions were found to meet adequate construct validity and reliability criteria. As a result, it was determined that the NNSF-PE adapted to Turkish culture is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to assess middle school students’ perceptions of novelty in PES classes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Novelty need satisfaction
• Novelty need frustration
• Physical education
• Scale adaptation
• Self-determination theory

Kaynakça

1. Aibar, A., Abós, Á., García-González, L., González-Cutre, D., ve Sevil-Serrano, J. (2021). Understanding students’ novelty satisfaction in physical education: Associations with need-supportive teaching style and physical activity intention. European Physical Education Review, 27(4), 779–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X21992791
2. Alpar, R. (2020). Geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik-güvenirlik (6. bs., s. 527–639). Detay Yayıncılık.
3. Bagheri, L., ve Milyavskaya, M. (2020). Novelty–variety as a candidate basic psychological need: New evidence across three studies. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09807-4
4. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., ve Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures, Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
5. Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., ve Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125
6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (Second edition). The Guilford Press.
7. Cano-Cañada, E., Tapia-Serrano, M. Á., Saiz-González, P., Fernandez-Rio, J., ve Iglesias, D. (2025). Effect of pedagogical models on novelty satisfaction in physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Physical Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X251385414
8. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

9. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., ve Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1
10. Comrey, A. L., ve Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd Edition). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827506
11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row
12. Deci, E. L., ve Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
13. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (Fourth edition). SAGE.
14. Du, C., ve Yang, Y. (2025). Exploring EFL learners’ need satisfaction, need frustration, and their motivational change in a blended English learning environment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 400–419.
15. Fernández-Espínola, C., Almagro, B. J., Tamayo-Fajardo, J. A., ve Sáenz-López, P. (2020). Complementing the self-determination theory with the need for novelty: Motivation and intention to be physically active in physical education students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01535
16. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th edition). SAGE.
17. Fierro-Suero, S., González-Cutre, D., Murta, L., Almagro, B. J., ve Sáenz-López, P. (2024). Novelty, emotions and intention to be physically active in physical education students. Apunts Educación Física y Deportes, 156, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2024/2).156.06
18. Fornell, C., ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
19. George, D., ve Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (Fourteenth edition). Routledge, Taylor ve Francis Group.
20. González-Cutre, D., ve Sicilia, Á. (2019). The importance of novelty satisfaction for multiple positive outcomes in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 25(3), 859-875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18783980
21. González-Cutre, D., Brugarolas-Navarro, M., Beltrán-Carrillo, V. J., ve Jiménez-Loaisa, A. (2025a). The frustration of novelty and basic psychological needs as predictors of maladaptive outcomes in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 30(1), 64–77.
22. González-Cutre, D., Ferriz, R., ve Jiménez-Loaisa, A. (2025b). The important role of novelty in physical education: Conceptual definition and teachers’ motivational techniques. In Motivation in physical education (pp. 259–282). Springer Nature Switzerland.
23. González-Cutre, D., Romero-Elías, M., Jiménez-Loaisa, A., Beltrán-Carrillo, V. J., ve Hagger, M. S. (2020). Testing the need for novelty as a candidate need in basic psychological needs theory. Motivation and Emotion, 44(2), 295-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09812-7
24. González-Cutre, D., Sicilia, Á., Sierra, A. C., Ferriz, R., ve Hagger, M. S. (2016). Understanding the need for novelty from the perspective of self-determination theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.036
25. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2. bs.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781098
26. Guadagnoli, E., ve Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
27. Gürbüz, S. (2021). AMOS ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (2. bs). Seçkin yayıncılık.
28. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (Eighth edition). Cengage.
29. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., ve Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
30. Hogarty, K. Y., Hines, C. V., Kromrey, J. D., Ferron, J. M., ve Mumford, K. R. (2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(2), 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404264848
31. Hu, L., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
32. Işıkgöz, M. E. (2025). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation in high school physical education: Which fuels adolescent achievement emotions better? PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0327393.
33. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
34. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
35. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Fourth edition). The Guilford Press.
36. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
37. Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., ve Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
38. Nunnally, J. C., ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. bs). McGraw-Hill.
39. Osborne, J. W., ve Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.7275/ktzq-jq66
40. Öner, B., ve Karataş, Ö. (2025). Relationships between need-supportive teaching style, psychological need satisfaction, motivation and happiness level in secondary school physical education and sports course. Sportlogia, 21(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.63356/spl.2025.012
41. Preacher, K. J., ve MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015210025234
42. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427.
43. Ryan, R. M., ve Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
44. Sönmez, İ., ve Solmazer, G. (2022). Perceived partner responsiveness and intimate partner cyberstalking: The mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Nesne, 10(26), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-10-26-01
45. Sylvester, B. D., Lubans, D. R., Eather, N., Standage, M., Wolf, S. A., McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Kaulius, M., Crocker, P. R. E. ve Beauchamp, M. R. (2016). Effects of variety support on exercise‐related well‐being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 8(2), 213-231.
46. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. ed., international ed). Pearson.
47. Trigueros, R., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., López-Liria, R., ve Rocamora, P. (2019). The dark side of the self-determination theory and its influence on the emotional and cognitive processes of students in physical education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4444.
48. Vandenberg, R. J., ve Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
49. Vansteenkiste, M., ve Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
50. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., ve Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31.
51. Williams, B., Onsman, A., ve Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93
52. Worthington, R. L., ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
53. Yong, A. G., ve Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079