Elit Sporcu Benlik Algısı Envanteri Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışma Marsh ve arkadaşları tarafından 1997 yılında geliştirilen, “Elit Sporcu Benlik Algısı Envanteri (ESBAE)” Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin test edilmesi amacı ile yapılmıştır. Çalışmaya 111 kadın (Xyaş =23.49, Ss=4.66 yıl) ve 195 (Xyaş =26.63, Ss=5.02 yıl) erkek olmak üzere toplam 306 ( Xyaş =25.49, Ss=5.12 yıl) sporcu katılmıştır. Elit Sporcu Benlik Algısı Envanteri sporda başarı için gerekli olan fiziksel ve zihinsel uygunluk yetilerinde sporcuların kendilerini algılamalarını değerlendirmektedir. Envanter 29 madde ve 6 alt boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Bu alt boyutlar Algılanan beceri, Vücut uygunluğu, Aerobik uygunluk, Anaerobik uygunluk, Zihinsel beceri ve Genel performanstır. Envanterde yer alan 29 madde 6’lı Likert (1= Tamamen Yanlış ile 6= Tamamen Doğru) tipi ölçek üzerinde cevaplandırılmaktadır. Envanterin faktör yapısı Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile LISREL 8.7 yazılımı kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Envanterin güvenirliğini belirlemek için ise Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda elde edilen uyum indeks değerleri envanterin orijinal altı faktörlü yapısını destekler niteliktedir (2/sd= 2.20, kök ortalama kare yaklaşım hatası (RMSEA) = 0.06, standardize edilmiş kök ortalama kare artık (SRMR) = 0.04, normlaştırılmamış uyum indeksi (NNFI) = 0.91 ve karşılaştırmalı uyum indeksi (CFI) = 0.92). Envanterin güvenirliğini test etmek üzere hesaplanan Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayıları 0.85 (Aerobik Uygunluk, Anaerobik Uygunluk ve Zihinsel Beceri) ile 0.89 (Algılanan Beceri) arasındadır. Sonuç olarak, “Elit Sporcu Benlik Algısı Envanteri” Türkçe versiyonunun elit sporcuların spora özgü kendilerini algılamalarını değerlendirmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir envanter olduğu söylenebilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Elit Sporcu Benlik Algısı Envanteri, Güvenirlik, Yapı Geçerliği

ELITE ATHLETE SELF-DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN TURKISH ATHLETES

Öz

The purpose of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Elite Athlete Self-Description Questionnaire (EASDQ). One hundred and eleven female (Mage =23.49, Ss=4.66 years) and 195 male (Mage =26.63, Ss=5.02 years), totally 306 athletes (Mage =25.49, Ss=5.12 years) participated in this study. EASDQ is designed to measure perception of physical fitness and mental skill competence of elite athletes. The instrument consists of 6 subscales with 29 items. These subscales are Skill, Body, Aerobic fitness, Anaerobic fitness, Mental Skills and Overall Performance. Algılanan beceri, Vücut uygunluğu, Aerobik uygunluk, Anaerobik uygunluk, Zihinsel beceri ve Genel performanstır The Turkish version of EASDQ was administered to participants in a group setting. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test construct validity of the Turkish version of EASDQ and calculated Cronbach alpha coefficients to determine reliabilities of the subscales. The hypothesized model consisted of 29 observed variables and six latent variables. The hypothesized model resulted in good fit indices (2 /df = 2.20, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04, NNFI = 0.91 and CFI = 0.92). These findings showed that the Turkish version of EASDQ had similar factor structure to the original scale’s 6-factor structure. Internal consistency coefficients of the Turkish version of EASDQ subscales ranged from .85 (Anaerobic fitness, Aerobic fitness and Mental skills) to 0.89 (Skill). It can be concluded that EASDQTurkish version is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring sport specific self-perception of elite athletes

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Construct Validity, EASDQ, Reliability

Kaynakça

1. Abdoli A, Farsi AR (2013): Reliability and validity of Elite Athletes Self-Description Questionnaire. Mot Behav (Res on Sport Sci), 5 (12), 65-81.
2. Alpar R (2014): Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerin- den Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik- Güvenirlik. 3. Baskı. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
3. Altıntaş A, Çağlar E, Aşçı FH ve ark. (2009): Ço- cuklar ve gençler için fiziksel benlik algısı envante- rinin yapı ve ölçüt bağıntılı geçerliğinin test edil- mesi. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 14 (2), 3-12.
4. Aşçı FH, Aşçı A, Zorba E (1999): Cross-cultural validity and reliability of Physical Self-Perception Profile. Int J Sport Psychol, 30, 399-406.
5. Aşçı FH, Eklund RC, Whitehead JR ve ark. (2005): Use of the CY-PSPP in other cultures: A prelimi- nary investigation of its factorial validity for turkish children and youth. Psychol Sport Exerc, 6, 33–50.
6. Atienza FL, Balaguer I, Moreno Y ve ark. (2004): Physical self-perception profile: psychometric pro- perties of the Spanish version, and validity of the physical self-perception hierarchical structure. Psi- cothema, 16, 461-467.
7. Brislin RW (1986): The wording and translation of research instruments. 137-164. In: WJ Lonner, JW Berry (Eds.), Field Methods in Educational Rese- arch. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
8. Felton L (2012). Investigating the psychological

9. functioning of athletes: the integration of attach- ment theory and self-determination theory. Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University, UK.
10. Felton L, Jowett S (2013): Attachment and well-be
11. ing: The mediating effects of psychological needs satisfaction within the coach–athlete and parent– athlete relational contexts. Psychol Sport Exerc, 14(1), 57-65.
12. Ferreira JP, Fox KR (2003): Evidence of cross-cul- tural validity and reliability of Portuguese version of the physical self-perception profile. 58. In: R. Stelter (Ed.), Proceedings of the XIth European Congress of Sport Psychology. ECSS, Copenhagen, Denmark.
13. Fox KR (2000): Self-esteem, self-perceptions and exercise. Int J Sport Psychol, 31, 228-240.
14. Fox KR Corbin CB (1989): The physical self-per- ception profile: Development & preliminary valida- tion. J Sport Exerc Psy, 11, 408-430.
15. Guerin F, Marsh HW, Famose JP (2004): Generali- zability of the PSDQ and its relationship to physical fitness: The European French connection. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 26, 19-38.
16. Jowett S (2008): Moderator and mediator effects of the association between the quality of the coach-ath- lete relationship and athletes’ physical self-concept. Int J Coaching Sci, 2(1), 1-20.
17. Jowett S, Rhind D (2007): The impact of parent-cre- ated motivational climate on adolescent athletes' perceptions of physical self-concept. J Study Sports Athl Educ, 1(3), 345-360.
18. Klomsten AT, Skaalvik EM, Espnes GA (2004): Physical self-concept and sports: Do gender diffe- rences still exist? Sex Roles, 50, 1,119-127.
19. Lindwall M, Hassmén P (2004): The role of exercise and gender for physical self-perceptions and impor- tance ratings in Swedish university students. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 14, 373-380.
20. Lindwall M, Aşçı FH, Crocker P (2014): The physi- cal self in motion: within-person change and asso- ciations of change in self-esteem, physical self-con- cept, and physical activity in adolescent girls. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 36 (6), 551-63.
21. Marsh HW (1997): The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation approach. In: K. R. Fox (Ed) The Physical Self: From Motivation to Well Being. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
22. Marsh HW, Cheng JHS (2012): Physical self-con- cept. 215-226. In: G Tenenbaum, R Eklund, A Ka- mata (Eds.), Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
23. Marsh HW, Hey J, Johnson S ve ark. (1997): Elite Athlete Self-Description Questionnaire: Hierarchi- cal confirmatory factor analysis of responses by two distinct groups of athletes. Int J Sport Psychol, 28, 237-258.
24. Marsh HW, Marco IT, Aşçı FH (2002): Cross cul- tural validity of the Physical Self-Description Ques- tionnaire: Comparison of factor structures in Aus- tralia, Spain and Turkey. Res Q Exerc Sport, 73, 257-270.
25. Marsh HW, Perry C (2005): Self-concept contribu- tes to winning gold medals: Causal ordering of self- concept and elite swimming performance. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 27, 71-91.
26. Marsh HW, Richards GE, Johnson S ve ark. (1994): Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psycho- metric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of relations with existing instruments. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 15, 270-305.
27. Meydan CH, Şeşen H (2011) Yapısal Eşitlik Model- lemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Detay Yayıncılık, An- kara.
28. Middleton SC (2007): Mental toughness: Conceptu- alization and measurement. Doctoral dissertation, School of Psychology, University of Western Syd- ney, Australia.
29. Ostrow AC (1990): Directory of Psychological Test in the Sport and Exercise Science. Fitness Informa- tion Technology: Morgantown, WV.
30. Savaşır I (1994): Ölçek uyarlamasındaki sorunlar ve bazı çözüm yolları. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 9 (33), 27-32.
31. Stiller J, Alfermann D (2005): Testing a German version of the Physical Self-Description Question- naire. In: T Morris, P Terry, S Gordon ve ark. (Eds.), Promoting Health and Performance for Life: Proce- edings of the ISSP 11th World Congress of Sport Psychology [CD-ROM]. International Society of Sport Psychology, Sydney.
32. Sümer N (2000): Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
33. Şimşek ÖF (2007): Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş (Temel İlkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları). Eki- noks Eğitim Danışmanlık, Ankara.
34. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2013): Using Multivari- ate Statistics. 6. Baskı, Boston, Pearson Education Inc.
35. Van de Vliet P, Knapen J, Onghena P ve ark. (2002): Assessment of physical self-perceptions in normal Flemish adults versus depressed psychiatric pati- ents. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 855-863.