Drexel Ayrışma Ölçeği: Türkçe Versiyonu Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Öz. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Drexel Ayrışma Ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlayarak, ölçeğin gerekli psikometrik özelliklerini test etmektir. İki aşamada yürütülen bu çalışma, iki farklı örneklem grubuyla yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın ilk aşaması olan Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi’nin (EFA) test edilmesine 370 (218 kadın, 152 erkek), Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi’nin (DFA) test edilmesine ise 715 (351 kadın, 364 erkek) öğrenci katılmıştır. Drexel Ayrışma Ölçeği, 6’lı dereceleme ölçeğinde (0: Hiç; 5: Çok fazla), katılımcıların verilen bir senaryo üzerinde ne ölçüde bilişsel ayrışma yapabildiklerini derecelendirmelerini isteyen 10 madde ve tek boyuttan oluşmaktadır. DFA sonuçları, ölçeğin tek boyutlu yapısını doğrulamıştır. Drexel Ayrışma Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonunun iç tutarlılık katsayısı (α > .80) ve test-tekrar test güvenirliği (α = .81) yüksek bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular ışığında, Drexel Ayrışma Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini söylemek mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilişsel ayrışma
• uyarlama
• güvenirlik
• geçerlik

The Drexel Defusion Scale: Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version

Abstract

Cognitive defusion is one of the components of psychological flexibility in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. The purpose of this study was to translate the Drexel Defusion Scale (DDS) into Turkish and test its psychometric properties. This two-phase study was carried out with two groups of participants. The first phase, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) included 370 university students (218 female, 152 male). The second phase, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and divergent validity consisted of 715 university students (351 female, 364 male). The DDS measures the ability to achieve a distance from inner experiences like thoughts and feelings, and it consists of 10 scenarios on a six-point Likert-scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 5 (Very much). The DDS has a unidimentional factor structure. The CFA results confirmed the one-factor structure of Turkish DDS (T-DDS). The T-DDS also yielded satisfactory (α > .80) internal consistency and test-retest reliability (α = .81). Thus, findings revealed satisfactory reliability and validity evidence for the T-DDS.

Keywords

• cognitive defusion
• adaptation
• reliability
• validity

References

1. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191-206. doi: 10.1177/1073191104268029
2. Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., … , & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionniare-II: A revised measure of psychological flexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676–688. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007
3. Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204-223. doi: 10.1177/1073191107311467
4. Carvalho, S., Castilho, P., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2013). The Portuguese version of The Drexel Defusion Scale: A validation study in clinical and non-clinical samples. Poster presented at Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) Conference and Workshops, London, UK.
5. Deacon, B. J., Fawzy, T. I., Lickel, J. J., & Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B. (2011). Cognitive defusion versus cognitive restructuring in the treatment of negative self-referential thoughts: An investigation of process and outcome. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 25(3), 218–232. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.25.3.218
6. Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595-605.
7. Forman, E. M., Herbert, J. D., Juarascio, A. S., Yeomans, P. D., Zebell, J. A., Goetter, E. M., & Moitra, E. (2012). The Drexel Defusion Scale: A new measure of experiential distancing. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1–2), 55–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.001
8. Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., van Dulmen, M. H., Segal, Z. V., Ma, S. H., Teasdale, J. D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the experiences questionnaire: Validation of a self-report measure of decentering. Behavior therapy, 38(3), 234-246. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.003

9. Frisch, M. B. (1994). Quality of life inventory (QOLI). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
10. Gillanders, D.T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F.W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P.E., Campbell, L., … & Masley, S. (2014). The development and initial validation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 83-101. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2013.09.001
11. Hayes, S. C., & Lillis, J. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Theories of psychotherapy series. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: The Guilford Press.
13. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006
14. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., … M.Mccurry, S. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54(4), 553–578. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
15. Healy, H. A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Keogh, C., Luciano, C., & Wilson, K. (2008). An experimental test of a cognitive defusion exercise: Coping with negative and positive self-statements. The Psychological Record, 58(4), 623-640. doi: 10.1007/BF03395641
16. Hesser, H., Westin, V., Hayes, S. C., & Andersson, G. (2009). Clients’ in-session acceptance and cognitive defusion behaviors in acceptance-based treatment of tinnitus distress. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(6), 523-528. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.002
17. Herzberg, K. N., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., Credé, M., Earleywine, M., & Eifert, G. H. (2012). The Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire (BAFT): A psychometric evaluation of cognitive fusion in a nonclinical and highly anxious community sample. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 877–891. doi:10.1037/a0027782
18. Hinton, M. J., & Gaynor, S. T. (2010). Cognitive defusion for psychological distress, dysphoria, and low self-esteem: A randomized technique evaluation trial of vocalizing strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(3), 164–185. doi: 10.1037/h0100906
19. Hooper, N., & McHugh, L. (2013). Cognitive defusion versus thought distraction in the mitigation of learned helplessness. Psychological Record, 63, 209–218. doi:10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.016
20. Hu, L., & 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. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
21. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Assumptions+in+Structural+Equation+Modeling#4
22. Larsson, A., Hooper, N., Osborne, L. A., Bennett, P., & McHugh, L. (2016). Using brief cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion techniques to cope with negative thoughts. Behavior Modification, 40(3), 452-482. doi: 10.1177/0145445515621488
23. Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., ..., & Devins, G. (2006). The Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445-1467. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20326
24. Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, R. D. (2007). Learning ACT: An acceptance & commitment therapy skills-training manual for therapists. New Harbinger Publications.
25. Mandavia, A., Masuda, A., Moore, M., Mendoza, H., Donati, M. R., & Cohen, L. L. (2015). The application of a cognitive defusion technique to negative body image thoughts: A preliminary analogue investigation. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(2), 86-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.02.003
26. Masuda, A., Twohig, M. P., Stormo, A. R., Feinstein, A. B., Chou, Y.-Y., & Wendell, J. W. (2010). The effects of cognitive defusion and thought distraction on emotional discomfort and believability of negative self-referential thoughts. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 41(1), 11–17. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.08.006
27. McCracken, L. M., Barker, E., & Chilcot, J. (2014). Decentering, rumination, cognitive defusion, and psychological flexibility in people with chronic pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 37(6), 1215–1225. doi:10.1007/s10865-014-9570-9
28. Meunier, B., Atmaca, S., Ayranci, E., Gökdemir, B. P., Uyar, T., & Baştuğ, G. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II). Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 14(2), 179–196.
29. Moffitt, R., Brinkworth, G., Noakes, M., & Mohr, P. (2012). A comparison of cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion as strategies for resisting a craved food. Psychology & Health, 27(2), 74–90. doi:10.1080/08870446.2012.694436
30. Pilecki, B. C., & Mckay, D. (2012). An experimental investigation of cognitive defusion. The Psychological Record, 62, 19–40. doi:10.1007/BF03395784
31. Roberts, S. L., & Sedley, B. (2016). Acceptance and commitment therapy with older adults: Rationale and case study of an 89-year-old with depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Clinical Case Studies, 15(1), 53–67. doi:10.1177/1534650115589754
32. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginners guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge. Swank, J. M., & Mullen, P. R. (2017). Evaluating evidence for conceptually related constructs using bivariate correlations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 270-274. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2017.1339562