The Adaptation Study of Personal and Social Responsibility Questionnaire into Turkish Language

Öz

The aim of this study is to adapt the Questionnaire of Personal and Social Responsibility, developed by Li et al (2008), into Turkish and thus gaining a measure tool for teachers of physical education and sport when they use the model of personal and social responsibility (TPSR) during their courses. Scale was administered to 250 students for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and 210 students for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The result of analysis showed that there were differences between the factor loadings of original scale of items and this adapted one. The findings of EFA indicated that scale included only one factor and the structure of factor is acceptable. This one factor was named after as “behaviors of responsibility”. Internal consistency coefficient was calculated as .925 concerning reliability. In addition, Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, calculated for reliability of test-re-test, was determined as significant. The findings of CFA showed that the structure developed in EFA was acceptable. Adapted scale consists of 14 items and in six Likert type. Scale is a reliable and valid tool that may be used in Turkish culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Personal responsibility; social responsibility; personal and social responsibility model; physical educaton and sport

Bireysel ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Ölçeği’nin (BSS-Ö) Türk Diline Uyarlanma Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmada, Li ve diğ. (2008) tarafından geliştirilen Bireysel ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlayarak beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenlerinin ders uygulamalarında bireysel ve sosyal sorumluluk (BSSÖ) modelini kullanırken değerlendirme yapabilmeleri için bir ölçme aracı elde etmek amaçlanmıştır. Ölçek, açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) için 250 öğrenciye, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) için 210 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, uyarlanan ölçek maddelerinin faktör boyutundaki dağılımlarında özgün hali ile karşılaştırıldığında farklılık olduğu tespit edilmiştir. AFA’dan elde edilen bulgular, uyarlanan ölçeğin bir faktörden oluştuğunu ve faktör yapısının kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermektedir. Uyarlanan ölçeğin bir faktörlü yapısına “sorumluluk davranışları” ismi verilmiştir. Güvenirlik çalışması kapsamında iç tutarlık katsayısı .925 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Test–tekrar test güvenirlik çalışması için hesaplanan Pearson Momentler Çarpımı Korelasyon Katsayısının anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. DFA’dan elde edilen bulgular, AFA’da oluşan yapının kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Uyarlanan ölçek 14 maddeden oluşmaktadır ve 6’lı Likert tipindedir. Ölçek Türk kültüründe kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araçtır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bireysel sorumluluk; sosyal sorumluluk; bireysel ve sosyal sorumluluk modeli; beden eğitimi ve spor

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, JC, Gerbing DW. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155- 173.
2. Baş T. (2006). Anket. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
3. Baykul Y. (2000). Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme: Klasik Test Teorisi ve Uygulaması. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları.
4. Bentler PM. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5. Brown TA. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.
6. Brownlow C. (2004). SPSS Explained. London: Routledge.
7. Bryman A, Cramer D. (1999). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 8 for Windows. London and New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, Routledge.
8. Büyüköztürk Ş. (2002). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A.

9. Catalano RF, Berglund ML, Ryan JA, Lonczak HS, Hawkins JD. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci, 591, 98-124
10. Cole DA. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 1019-1031.
11. Collingwood T. (1996). Helping at- Risk Youth through Physical Fitness Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
12. Cutforth NJ. (1997). What’s worth doing: Reflections on an after-school program in a Denver elementary school. Quest, 49, 130-139.
13. Danish SJ, Forneris T, Wallace I. (2005). Sport-based life skills programming in the schools. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 21, 41-62.
14. DeBusk M, Hellison D. (1989). Implementing a physical education self- responsibility model for delinquencyprone youth. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8 (2), 104-112.
15. Erkuş A. (2003). Psikometri Üzerine Yazılar. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği. No:24.
16. Field A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE.
17. Garbarino J. (1997). Educating children in a socially toxic environment. Educational Leadership, 7, 12-16.
18. Gordon B. (2010). An examination of the responsibility model in a New Zealand secondary school physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 21-37.
19. Hambleton RK, Bollwark J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Testing Commission, 18, 3-32.
20. Hambleton RK, Kanjee A. (1993). Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association: Enhancing the validity of cross-cultural studies: Improvements in instrument translation methods. Atlanta.
21. Hellison D. (2011). Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (3th Edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
22. Hellison D. (2014). Fiziksel Aktivite Yoluyla Bireysel ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Öğretimi. (B Filiz, Çev. Ed.), Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
23. Hellison D, Cutforth N, Kallusky J, Martinek T, Parker M, Stiehl J. (2000). Youth Development and Physical Activity: Linking Universities and Communities. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
24. Hellison D, Martinek T. (2006). Social and individual responsibility programs. In D Kirk, D Macdonald, M O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education. (pp. 610–626). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Hellison D, Walsh D. (2002). Responsibility-based youth programs evaluation: Investigating the investigations. Quest, 54, 292–307.
26. Hu LT, Bentler PM. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.
27. Kline RB. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. (3nd Edition). New York London: The Guilford Press.
28. Lawson HA, Anderson-Butcher D. (2000). Congres Modial du Sport pour Tous: The social work of sport. Sport for All Governmental Policies as an Essential Means Towards the Improvement of Social Health and Well-Being. Quebec, Canada. pp. 480-489.
29. Lee O, Martinek T. (2009). Navigating two cultures: An investigation of cuıtures of a responsibility-based physical activity program and school. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 80 (2), 230-240.
30. Li W, Wright PM, Rukavina P, Pickering M. (2008). Measuring students’ perceptions of personal and social responsibility and its relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 167-178.
31. Martinek TJ, Hellison DR. (1997). Fostering resiliency in underserved youth through physical activity. Quest, 49, 34-49.
32. Martinek T, Schilling T, Johnson D. (2001). Transferring personal and social responsibility of underserved youth to the classroom. The Urban Review, 33, 29-45.
33. Öner N. (1987). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlamasında bir yöntem bilim modeli. Psikoloji Dergisi, 6 (21), 80-83.
34. Özgüven İE. (1999). Psikolojik Testler. Ankara: PDREM Yayınları.
35. Petitpas AJ, Cornelius AE, Van Raalte JL, Jones T. (2005). A framework for planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 63-80.
36. Sandford RA, Armour KM, Warmington PC. (2006). Re-engaging disaffected youth through physical activity programmes. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 251-271.
37. Savaşır I. (1994). Ölçek uyarlamasındaki bazı sorunlar ve çözüm yolları. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 33 (9), 27-32.
38. Sümer N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-74.
39. Şencan H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik. Ankara: Seçkin Matbaası.
40. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: HarperCollins College.
41. Tavşancıl E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
42. Thompson B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
43. Walsh DS. (2007). Supporting youth development outcomes: An evaluation of a responsibility modelbased program. Physical Educator, 64 (1), 48-56.
44. Watson DL, Newton M, Kim M. (2003). Recognition of values-based constructs in a summer physical activity program. Urban Review, 35, 217-232.
45. Williamson KM, Georgiadis N. (1992). Teaching an inner-city after-school program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63 (9), 14-18.
46. Wright PM, Burton S. (2008). Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 138-154.
47. Yılmaz V, Çelik EH. (2009). Lisrel ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi-I:Temel Kavramlar