İLİŞKİDE OTANTİKLİK ÖLÇEĞİ: TÜRK KÜLTÜRÜNE UYARLAMA VE GEÇERLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Lopez ve Rice (2006) tarafından geliştirilen İlişkide Otantiklik Ölçeği’nin Türk örneklemindeki psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu, 263 lisans öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. İlişkide Otantiklik Ölçeği’nin yapı geçerliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Bulgular, uyum iyiliği indekslerinin yeterli düzeyde olduğunu ve ölçeğin iki faktörlü yapısının doğrulandığını göstermiştir (χ2 / df= 1.8; GFI= 0.88; CFI= 0.90; TLI= .88; RMSEA= 0.05). Ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı .80 bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin yakınsak geçerliğini saptamak amacıyla, Otantiklik Ölçeği ve İlişki Doyumu Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Buna göre, İlişkide Otantiklik Ölçeği ile Otantiklik Ölçeği ve İlişki Doyumu Ölçeği arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Yanı sıra, ölçme değişmezliği analizinin sonuçları, kadınların ve erkeklerin ölçek maddelerine verdikleri yanıtların benzer bir örüntüde olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu nedenle, İlişkide Otantiklik Ölçeği’nin cinsiyet faktörü açısından ölçme değişmezliğine sahip olduğu söylenebilir. Sonuç olarak, mevcut çalışmanın bulguları, İlişkide Otantiklik Ölçeği’nin Türk kültüründe geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İlişkide otantiklik
• dürüstlük
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• ölçme değişmezliği

AUTHENTICITY IN RELATIONSHIPS SCALE (AIRS): TURKISH ADAPTATION AND VALIDATION STUDY

Öz

The aim of the current study is to investigate the psychometric properties of Authenticity in Relationships Scale (AIRS) developed by Lopez and Rice (2006) in Turkish sample. The study carried out with 263 undergraduate students that were included with purposive sampling method. To examine the construct validity of AIRS, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. The results showed that goodness of fit indices meet the model fit requirements for the two-factor structure of the scale (χ2 / df= 1.8; GFI= 0.88; CFI= 0.90; TLI= .88; RMSEA= 0.05). The internal consistency coefficient was found .80. As an evidence for the convergent validity, Authenticity in Relationships Scale was found to have significantly positive correlations with the Authenticity Scale and Relationship Assessment Scale. Moreover, the results of measurement invariance analysis showed that scale has the same measurement body of items in females and males and the answer patterns are similar in both genders indicating a sound metric variance for AIRS. In conclusion, it can be concluded that AIRS is a reliable and valid measure of relationship authenticity in Turkish culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Relationship authenticity
• honesty
• validity
• reliability
• measurement invariance

Kaynakça

1. Bentler, M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
2. Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choices in public and private life. New York: Pantheon.
3. Brown, A. T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (1st ed). New York: Guilford Press.
4. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). Emotional expression in the deception process. In P. A. Anderson and L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. 381–402). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5. Bussey, K. (1992). Lying and truthfulness: Children’s definitions, standards, and evaluative reactions. Child Development, 63, 129-137.
6. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 107–129.
8. Curun, F. (2001). The Effects of Sexism and Sex Role Orientation on Romantic Relationship Satisfaction. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

9. DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79.
10. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N. & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). US: McGraw-Hill Education.
11. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self. New York: Basic Books.
12. Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5, 18–20.
13. Hambleton, R. K., & Bollwark, J. (1991) Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 3-32.
14. Harbus, A. (2002). The medieval concept of the self in Anglo-Saxon England. Self and Identity, 1, 67–76.
15. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). London: Oxford University Press.
16. Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development, 67, 360–374.
17. Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). False self behavior and lack of voice among adolescent males and females. Educational Psychology, 32, 153–173.
18. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 93-98.
19. Horn, J. L. & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement equivalence in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.
20. IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 20.0. Armonk. NY: IBM Corp.
21. Ilhan, T., & Ozdemir, Y. (2013). Otantiklik Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(40), 142-153.
22. Kelly, A. E., & McKillop, K. J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal secrets. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 450–465.
23. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26.
24. Kline, B. R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
25. Knox, D., Schacht, C., Holt, J., & Turner, J. (1993). Sexual lies among university students. College Student Journal, 27, 269-272.
26. Lindskold, S., & Han, G. (1986). Intent and the judge- ment of lies. Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 129-130.
27. Lindskold, S., & Waters, P.S. (1983). Categories of acceptability of lies. Journal of Social Psychology, 120(1), 129-136.
28. Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 362-371.
29. Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 159–179.
30. Mitchell, S. A. (1992). True selves, false selves, and the ambiguity of authenticity. In N. J. Skolnick & S. C. Warshaw (Eds.), Relational perspectives in psychoanalysis (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
31. Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002a). The authenticity of conflict resolutions among adult couples: Does women’s other-oriented behavior affect their true selves? Sex Roles, 47, 298–307.
32. Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002b). The role of power and authenticity in relationship styles emphasizing autonomy, connectedness, or mutuality among adult couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 835–857.
33. Peterson, C. (1996). Deception in intimate relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 279–288.
34. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.
35. Saxe, L. (1991). Lying: Thoughts of an applied social psychologist. American Psychologist, 46, 251-258.
36. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
37. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.
38. Tabachnick. B. G. & Fidell. L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
39. Theran, S. A. (2011). Authenticity in relationships and depressive symptoms: A gender analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 423-428.
40. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrica, 38, 1-10.
41. Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In D. W. Winnicott (Ed.), The maturational process and the facilitating environment (pp. 140–152). New York: International Universities Press.
42. Wood, A., Linley, P., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M. & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385–399.