Türkiye’de Ergen Bağlılığı: Okul Psikolojik Danışmanlığı ve Eğitimin Gelişimi İçin T-MAC’in Geçerlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Hemingway Ergen Bağlılık Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun (T-MAC) yapısal geçerliğini doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile, cinsiyete ve gelişimsel yaş gruplarına göre ölçme değişmezliğini çok-gruplu analizlerle ve alt boyutların iç tutarlığını güncel psikometrik yöntemlerle değerlendirmektir. Araştırma, 5–12. sınıfa devam eden 851 ergen (Kız = 443, Erkek = 408; M_yaş = 14.21, SD = 2.22) üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Veri seti rastgele ikiye bölünerek keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı analizler için bağımsız örneklemler oluşturulmuştur. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi polikorik korelasyon matrisi üzerinden temel eksen faktörleştirmesi ve promax döndürme ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve ölçme değişmezliği testleri WLSMV ve MLR tahmin yöntemleriyle yapılmıştır. Güvenirlik Cronbach alfa ve McDonald omega katsayılarıyla incelenmiştir. On faktörlü birinci derece model kabul edilebilir uyum göstermiş (CFI = .911, TLI = .905, RMSEA = .050, SRMR = .076) ve tek faktörlü taban modeline kıyasla belirgin biçimde daha güçlü desteklenmiştir (ΔCFI = .303). Cinsiyete göre tam skaler değişmezlik sağlanmıştır. Yaş gruplarında metrik değişmezlik desteklenirken, kısmi skaler değişmezlik elde edilmiştir. T-MAC, Türk ergenlerinde bağlılığın çok boyutlu yapısını değerlendirmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır. Ölçek puanları kız ve erkek ergenler arasında karşılaştırılabilir niteliktedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ergen bağlılığı
• Hemingway ölçeği
• doğrulayıcı faktör analizi
• ölçme değişmezliği
• Türk Ergenler

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırmanın verileri toplanmadan önce Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulundan 20 Kasım 2025 tarihli ve 13 sayılı karar ile etik kurul izni alınmıştır. Araştırmaya katılan tüm katılımcılardan "Bilgilendirilmiş Onam Formu" aracılığıyla gönüllü katılım onayları elde edilmiştir. Çalışma süresince bilimsel, etik ve alıntı kurallarına titizlikle uyulmuştur.

Teşekkür

Yazar, ölçeğin Türkçeye kazandırılmasındaki öncü çalışması ve bu araştırma sürecindeki desteği için Dr. Yasir Kurt'a; Hemingway Ergen Bağlılık Ölçeği'nin geliştiricisi olarak sağladığı katkı ve yönlendirmeler için Dr. Michael J. Karcher'a teşekkür eder.

Adolescent Connectedness in Turkiye: Validation of the T-MAC for School Counseling and Education Development

Öz

The aim of this study was to evaluate the structural validity of the Turkish form of the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness (T-MAC) through confirmatory factor analysis, to examine its measurement invariance across gender and developmental age groups using multi-group analyses, and to assess the internal consistency of its subscales with contemporary psychometric methods. The study was conducted with 851 adolescents (Female = 443, Male = 408) enrolled in grades 5–12. The dataset was randomly split into two independent samples for exploratory and confirmatory analyses. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the polychoric correlation matrix using principal axis factoring with promax rotation. Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance tests were conducted using WLSMV and MLR estimation methods. Reliability was examined through Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients. The ten-factor first-order model demonstrated acceptable fit (CFI = .911, TLI = .905, RMSEA = .050, SRMR = .076) and received substantially stronger support compared to the single-factor baseline model (ΔCFI = .303). Full scalar invariance was established across gender. Metric invariance was supported across age groups, while partial scalar invariance was attained. The T-MAC is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the multidimensional structure of connectedness in Turkish adolescents.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Adolescent Connectedness
• Turkish adolescents
• Condirmatory Factor Analysis
• Measurement İnvariance
• Hemingway Scale

Teşekkür

The author thanks Dr. Yasir Kurt for his pioneering work in adapting the scale into Turkish and for his support throughout this research, and Dr. Michael J. Karcher, the developer of the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness, for his contributions and guidance.

Kaynakça

1. Aladağ, M. (2005). Akran danışmanlığı: Yöntem, eğitim ve uygulama. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(23), 41–55.
2. American School Counselor Association. (2022). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).
3. Ayvalıoğlu, N. (1989). Türkiye'de bazı önemli değerlerin yapısı ve değişimi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 16, 26–35.
4. Bernat, D. H., & Resnick, M. D. (2009). Connectedness in the lives of adolescents. In R. J. DiClemente, J. S. Santelli, & R. A. Crosby (Eds.), Adolescent health: Understanding and preventing risk behaviors (pp. 375–389). Jossey-Bass.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
7. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
8. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

9. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
10. Çuhadaroğlu, F. (1986). Adolesanlarda benlik saygısı [Uzmanlık tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Duru, E. (2007). Sosyal bağlılık ölçeği'nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 26, 85–94.
11. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
12. Fokkema, M., & Greiff, S. (2017). How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000460
13. Fornell, C., & 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
14. Foster, C. E., Horwitz, A., Thomas, A., Opperman, K., Gipson, P., Burnside, A., Stone, D. M., & King, C. A. (2017). Connectedness to family, school, peers, and community in socially vulnerable adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.011
15. Gervais, C., & Jose, P. E. (2020). How does family connectedness contribute to youths' health? The mediating role of coping strategies. Family Process, 59(4), 1627–1647. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12516
16. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
17. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach's alpha for estimating reliability. But… Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
18. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
19. Hong, X., Pang, M., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, Q., & Mu, J. (2023). The longitudinal effect of school connectedness on adolescents' academic engagement: Mediating role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Children and Youth Services Review, 152, Article 107080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107080
20. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
22. Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (R package version 0.5-6) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
23. Jose, P. E., & Lim, B. T. L. (2014). Social connectedness predicts lower loneliness and depressive symptoms over time in adolescents. Open Journal of Depression, 3(4), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojd.2014.34019
24. Jose, P. E., Ryan, N., & Pryor, J. (2012). Does social connectedness promote a greater sense of well-being in adolescence over time? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00783.x
25. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1997). Kültürel psikoloji: Kültür bağlamında insan ve aile. Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
26. Karcher, M. J. (2001). Measuring adolescent connectedness: Four validation studies [Poster presentation]. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.
27. Karcher, M. J. (2003). The Hemingway: Measure of Adolescent Connectedness: Validation studies (ERIC No. ED477969). Education Resources Information Center.
28. Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0083-z
29. Karcher, M. J., & Lee, Y. (2002). Connectedness among Taiwanese middle school students: A validation study of the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024924
30. Karcher, M. J., & Sass, D. (2010). A multicultural assessment of adolescent connectedness: Testing measurement invariance across gender and ethnicity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019357
31. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
32. Kocayoruk, E. (2010). Ebeveyn ve akran bağlanması envanteri'nin kısa formu: Türk ergenler için psikometrik özelliklerin değerlendirilmesi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(33), 133–143.
33. Kurt, Y. (2017). Translation and the validation process of the Hemingway: Measure of Adolescent Connectedness (MAC) into Turkish [Doktora tezi, St. Mary's University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
34. Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople's commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
35. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461
36. Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
37. Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810
38. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
39. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
40. McWhirter, B. T., & McWhirter, E. H. (2011). A cross-cultural assessment of school connectedness: Testing measurement invariance with United States and Chilean adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(5), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911399097
41. Mohd Khatib, K. F. K. M., Borhanuddin, B., Tan, S. T., Ng, J. Q., Mohamed, S. N., Chong, S. C., Razali, R., Mansor, S., Zulkapli, M. F., Manap, M. S. A., & Jamal, R. (2022). Validation of the Malay version of the Hemingway: Measure of Adolescent Connectedness in a Malaysian sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 869024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.869024
42. Önen, Ö. (2014). Okul aidiyet ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 536–558.
43. Pastor, Y., Pérez-Torres, V., Angulo-Brunet, A., Nebot-Garcia, J. E., & Gallardo-Nieto, E. (2025). School, family, and peer connectedness as protective factors for depression and suicide risk in Spanish adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1547759. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1547759
44. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
45. Revelle, W. (2024). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.4) [Computer software]. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
46. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
47. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
48. Sakellariou, C. (2025). Reciprocal longitudinal effects between sense of school belonging and academic achievement: Quasi-experimental estimates using United States primary school data. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1478320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1478320
49. Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., Colón, Y., & Davis, K. E. (2011). Tryin' to make it during the transition from high school: The role of family obligation attitudes and economic context for Latino-emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(6), 858–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410376831
50. Savı, F. (2011). Çocuk ve ergenler için okula bağlanma ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 10(1), 80–90.
51. StataCorp. (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17 [Computer software]. StataCorp LLC.
52. Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 103–133). Erlbaum.
53. Sümer, N., Ünal, S., Sırlı, F., & Coşkun, K. (2019). Türkiye'de eğitim odaklı kaygıların gelişimi ve değişimi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 34(83), 16–34.
54. Sawyer, S. M., Azzopardi, P. S., Wickremarathne, D., & Patton, G. C. (2018). The age of adolescence. The lancet child & adolescent health, 2(3), 223-228.
55. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Derneği. (2024). Okul psikolojik danışmanlığı kapasitesi raporu. Türk PDR-DER.
56. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2025). Güvenlik birimine gelen veya getirilen çocuk istatistikleri. TÜİK. Vandenberg, R. J., & 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
57. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557
58. Verlenden, J. V., Fodeman, A., Wilkins, N., Jones, S. E., Moore, S., Cornett, K., Sims, V., Saelee, R., & Brener, N. D. (2024). Mental health and suicide risk among high school students and protective factors—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Supplements, 73(4), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7304a9
59. Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x
60. Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
61. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432