Epistemik Güven, Güvensizlik ve Saflık Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Yetişkinlerde İncelenmesi

Öz

Sosyal öğrenme sürecinde önemli bir rolü olan epistemik güven kavramı, bireylerin başkaları tarafından iletilen bilgileri değerlendirme becerisi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada daha önce Türkçe uyarlama ve geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması ergenlerde yapılan Epistemik Güven, Güvensizlik ve Saflık Ölçeği’nin psikometrik özelliklerinin yetişkin örnekleminde incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya kolayda ve kartopu örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan toplum örnekleminden 18-65 yaş aralığında (33.55±11.82) 180’i (%54.4) kadın, 151’i (%45.6) erkek olmak üzere 331 kişi katılmıştır. Katılımcılara Epistemik Güven, Güvensizlik ve Saflık Ölçeği, Mentalizasyon Ölçeği, Çocuklukta Onaylamayan Çevre Ölçeği, Belirsizliğe Tahammülsüzlük Ölçeği ve Kısa Semptom Envanteri uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda elde edilen uyum iyiliği indeks değerlerinin (X2/df = 2.54, AGFI = 0.89, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0,90, sRMR = 0.069) kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu ve orijinal çalışmada önerilen 3 faktörlü yapının doğrulandığı ve tüm maddelerin faktör yüklerinin .34 ila .78 aralığında değiştiği tespit edilmiştir. Yakınsak geçerliği değerlendirmek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen korelasyon analizi sonucunda değişkenler arasında istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Ayırt edici geçerliği değerlendirmek amacıyla yapılan Bağımsız Gruplar t-testi sonucunda alt ölçek puanlarının psikiyatrik veya psikolojik rahatsızlığa sahip olma, psikolojik yardım alma, psikolojik yardım alma ihtiyacı hissetmeye göre farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. Cronbach Alfa katsayısı epistemik güven için .78, epistemik güvensizlik için .69 ve epistemik saflık için ise .77 olarak bulunmuştur. Bütün maddelerin madde toplam korelasyon katsayılarının .30’un üzerinde olduğu saptanmıştır. Madde ayırt ediciliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla %27’lik üst ve alt grubun karşılaştırılması sonucunda ise ölçeğin tüm maddelerinin ayırt edici güce sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen analizler sonucunda Epistemik Güven, Güvensizlik ve Saflık Ölçeği’nin yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu, Türk toplumunda yapılacak olan araştırmalarda ve klinik pratikte ölçüm aracı olarak kullanılabileceği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemik güven
• Epistemik güvensizlik
• Epistemik saflık
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• uyarlama

Investigation of the Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire in Adults

Öz

The concept of epistemic trust, which has an important role in the social learning process, is defined as the ability to evaluate the information conveyed by others. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) in an adult sample; the Turkish adaptation, validity, and reliability of this scale were previously studied in adolescents. A total of 331 people, 180 (54.4%) female and 151 (45.6%) male, aged between 18-65 (33.55±11.82) participated in the study from a community sample reached through convenience and snowball sampling methods. The Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ), Mentalization Questionnaire (MZQ), Invalidating Childhood Environment Scale (ICES), Intolerance Of Uncertainty (IUS-12) Scale and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were administered to the participants. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) performed to evaluate the construct validity of the scale, it was determined that the goodness of fit index values (X2/df = 2.54, AGFI = 0.89, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.90, sRMR = 0.069) were at an acceptable level and the 3-factor structure proposed in the original study was confirmed. It was determined that all item factor loadings ranged from .34 to .78. As a result of the correlation analysis performed to evaluate convergent validity, statistically significant relationships were found between the variables. As a result of the Independent Groups t-test performed to evaluate discriminant validity, it was determined that the subscale scores differed according to having a psychiatric or psychological disorder, receiving psychological help, and feeling the need to receive psychological help. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to be .78 for epistemic trust, .69 for epistemic mistrust and .77 for epistemic credulity. It was determined that the item total correlation coefficients of all items were above .30. In order to evaluate the item discrimination, it was determined that all items had discriminatory power as a result of the comparison of the upper and lower 27% groups. As a result of the analyses performed, it was determined that the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire is a valid and reliable scale with sufficient psychometric properties and can be used as a measurement tool in studies to be conducted in Turkish society and in clinical practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemic trust
• Epistemic mistrust
• Epistemic credulity
• Validity
• Reliability
• Adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Alpay, E.H., Bellur, Z., Aydin, A. (2018). Çocuklukta Onaylamayan Çevre Ölçeği (ÇOÇÖ) Türkçe Formu’nun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi, 31(1), 40 - 49.
2. Asgarizadeh, A., & Ghanbari, S. (2024). Iranian adaptation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ): Validity, reliability, discriminant ability, and sex invariance. Brain and Behavior, 14(3), e3455.
3. Bilge Y. & Bilge H. (Baskıda). Mentalizasyon Ölçeği’nin psikometrik özelliklerinin Türk toplum örnekleminde incelenmesi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi.
4. Bincoletto, A.F., Liotti, M., Di Giuseppe, M., Fiorentino, F., Nimbi, F.M., Lingiardi, V., & Tanzilli, A. (2025). The interplay of epistemic trust, defensive mechanisms, interpersonal problems, and symptomatology: An empirical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, 112893.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
6. Campbell, C., Kumpasoğlu, G.B., & Fonagy, P. (2024). Mentalizing, epistemic trust, and the active ingredients of psychotherapy. Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 52(4), 435-451.
7. Campbell, C., Tanzer, M., Saunders, R., Booker, T., Allison, E., Li, E., O’Dowda, C., Luyten, P., & Fonagy, P. (2021). Development and validation of a self-report measure of epistemic trust. PloS One, 16(4).
8. Carleton, R.N., Norton, M.A., & Asmundson, G.J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105-117.

9. Carleton, R.N. (2016). Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 39, 30-43.
10. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. Processes of change in brain and cognitive development. Attention and performance XXI, 21, 249-274.
11. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(4), 148-153.
12. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1149-1157.
13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
14. Derogatis, L.R. (1992). The Brief Symptom Inventory-BSI administration, scoring and procedures manual-II. USA, Clinical Pscyhometric Research Inc.
15. Derogatis, L.R., Lipman, R.S., & Covi, L. (1973). SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale-preliminary report. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9(1), 13-28.
16. Dugas, M.J., Freeston, M.H., & Ladouceur, R. (1997). Intolerance of uncertainty and problem orientation in worry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(6), 593-606.
17. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
18. Fiorini Bincoletto, A., Liotti, M., Di Giuseppe, M., Fiorentino, F., Nimbi, F.M., Lingiardi, V., & Tanzilli, A. (2024). The interplay of epistemic trust, defensive mechanisms, interpersonal problems, and symptomatology: An empirical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, 1-8.
19. Fisher, S., Fonagy, P., Wiseman, H., & Zilcha-Mano, S. (2023). I see you as recognizing me; therefore, ı trust you: Operationalizing epistemic trust in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 60(4), 560-572.
20. Fonagy, P., & Allison, E. (2014). The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy, 51(3), 372-380.
21. Fonagy, P., Campbell, C., & Bateman, A. (2017). Mentalizing, attachment and epistemic trust in group therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 67(2), 176-201.
22. Fonagy, P., Campbell, C., Constantinou, M., Higgitt, A., Allison, E., & Luyten, P. (2022). Culture and psychopathology: An attempt at reconsidering the role of social learning. Development and Psychopathology, 34(4), 1205-1220.
23. Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E.L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self (P. Fonagy, G. Gergely, & E.L. Jurist, Eds.; Vol. 1). Routledge.
24. Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M. (2007). The parent-infant dyad and the construction of the subjective self. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 48(3-4), 288-328.
25. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., & Allison, E. (2015). Epistemic petrification and the restoration of epistemic trust: A new conceptualization of borderline personality disorder and its psychosocial treatment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(5), 575-609.
26. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017a). What we have changed our minds about: Part 1. Borderline personality disorder as a limitation of resilience. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4(1), 11.
27. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017b). What we have changed our minds about: Part 2. Borderline personality disorder, epistemic trust and the developmental significance of social communication. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4(1), 9.
28. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2019). Mentalizing, Epistemic Trust and the Phenomenology of Psychotherapy. Psychopathology, 52(2), 94-103.
29. Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-organization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 679-700.
30. Freeston, M., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J. & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 791-802.
31. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, 1–208.
32. Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2005). The social construction of the cultural mind: Imitative learning as a mechanism of human pedagogy. Interaction Studies, 6(3), 463-481.
33. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity anthony giddens. Polity Press.
34. Greiner, C., Besch, V., Bouchard-Boivin, M., Le Hénaff, C., Von Rohr-De Pree, C., Perroud, N., ... & Debbané, M. (2025). Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) validation in French language: Exploring links to loneliness. Plos One, 20(3), e0303918.
35. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
36. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
37. Hausberg, M. C., Schulz, H., Piegler, T., Happach, C. G., Klöpper, M., Brütt, A. L., Sammet, I., & Andreas, S. (2012). Is a self-rated instrument appropriate to assess mentalization in patients with mental disorders? Development and first validation of the mentalization questionnaire (MZQ). Psychotherapy Research : Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 22(6), 699-709.
38. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
39. İlk, G. (2023). Ergenlik dönemi borderline kişilik bozukluğu (BKB) belirtilerinin epistemik güven, zihinselleştirme, duygu düzenleme ve kimlik dağılımı ile ilişkilerinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.
40. İlk, G., & Bilge, Y. (2024). Mentalizasyon Ölçeği’nin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Yaşam Becerileri Psikoloji Dergisi, 8(15), 67-82.
41. Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422.
42. Kampling, H., Kruse, J., Lampe, A., Nolte, T., Hettich, N., Brähler, E., Sachser, C., Fegert, J.M., Gingelmaier, S., Fonagy, P., Krakau, L., Zara, S. & Riedl, D. (2022). Epistemic trust and personality functioning mediate the association between adverse childhood experiences and posttraumatic stress disorder and complex posttraumatic stress disorder in adulthood. Frontiers Psychiatry, 13, 919191.
43. Karagöz, Y. (2017). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
44. Kline, R.B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Y. Petscher ve C. Schatsschneider, (Ed.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences içinde (171207). New York: Routledge.
45. Kline, R.B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
46. Knapen, S., Hutsebaut, J., van Diemen, R., & Beekman, A. (2020). epistemic trust as a psycho-marker for outcome in psychosocial interventions. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 19(4), 417-426.
47. Knapen, S., Swildens, W.E., Mensink, W., Hoogendoorn, A., Hutsebaut, J., & Beekman, A.T.F. (2024). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET): A self-report assessment of epistemic trust. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1), e2930.
48. Kruglanski, A.W., & Webster, D.M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283.
49. Kumpasoğlu, G.B., Saunders, R., Campbell, C., Nolte, T., Montague, R., Pilling, S., Leibowitz, J., & Fonagy, P. (2025). Mentalizing, epistemic trust and interpersonal problems in emotion regulation: A sequential path analysis across common mental health disorders and community control samples. Journal of Affective Disorders, 372, 502-511.
50. Li, E., Campbell, C., Midgley, N., & Luyten, P. (2023). Epistemic trust: A comprehensive review of empirical insights and implications for developmental psychopathology. Research in Psychotherapy : Psychopathology, Process, and Outcome, 26(3), 704.
51. Linehan, M.M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.
52. Liotti, M., Milesi, A., Spitoni, G.F., Tanzilli, A., Speranza, A.M., Parolin, L., Campbell, C., Fonagy, P., Lingiardi, V., & Giovanardi, G. (2023). Unpacking trust: The Italian validation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). PLOS ONE, 18(1), e0280328.
53. Luyten, P., Campbell, C., Allison, E., & Fonagy, P. (2020). The mentalizing approach to psychopathology: State of the art and future directions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 297-325.
54. Luyten, P., Campbell, C., & Fonagy, P. (2020). Borderline personality disorder, complex trauma, and problems with self and identity: A social-communicative approach. Journal of Personality, 88(1), 88-105.
55. Mountford, V., Corstorphine, E., Tomlinson, S., & Waller, G. (2007). Development of a measure to assess invalidating childhood environments in the eating disorders. Eating behaviors, 8(1), 48-58.
56. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
57. Origgi, G. (2012). Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 221-235.
58. Orme, W., Bowersox, L., Vanwoerden, S., Fonagy, P., & Sharp, C. (2019). The relation between epistemic trust and borderline pathology in an adolescent inpatient sample. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 6, 1-9.
59. Pepperdine, E., Lomax, C., & Freeston, M.H. (2018). Disentangling intolerance of uncertainty and threat appraisal in everyday situations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 57, 31-38.
60. Protopapa, G., Giovanardi, G., Juli, L., Di Giuseppe, M., & Rosaria Nappa, M. (2024). Epistemic trust: A keyword for contemporary clinical practice and psychopathology. Psychiatria Danubina, 36(suppl 2), 34-39.
61. Sarıçam, H., Erguvan, F.M., Akın, A. & Akça, M.Ş. (2014). Belirsizliğe Tahammülsüzlük Ölçeği (BTÖ-12) Türkçe Formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 1(3), 148-157.
62. Schröder-Pfeifer, P., Georg, A.K., Talia, A., Volkert, J., Ditzen, B., & Taubner, S. (2022). The Epistemic Trust Assessment-An Experimental Measure of Epistemic Trust. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 39(1), 50-58.
63. Schroder-Pfeifer, P., Talia, A., Volkert, J., & Taubner, S. (2018). Developing an assessment of epistemic trust: A research protocol. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 21(3), 123-131.
64. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393.
65. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
66. Sümbüloğlu, K., & Akdağ, B. (2009). İleri istatistiksel yöntemler. 1. Baskı, Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınları.
67. Şahin, N.H. ve Durak, A. (1994). Kısa Semptom Envanteri (Brief Symptom Inventory-BSI): Türk gençleri için uyarlaması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 9(31), 44-56.
68. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, 6th Edn. Northridge, CA: California State University.
69. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2015). The use of multivariate statistics. Baloglu M, Çev. Ed. 6. Baskı, Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık
70. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675-691.
71. Ural, A., & Kılıç, İ. (2021). Bilimsel araştırma süreci ve SPSS ile veri analizi (6. baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
72. Weiland, A.M., Taubner, S., Zettl, M., Bartmann, L.C., Frohn, N., Luginsland, M., & Volkert, J. (2024). Epistemic trust and associations with psychopathology: Validation of the German version of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity-Questionnaire (ETMCQ). PLOS ONE, 19(11), e0312995.