İŞTE MUTLULUK ÖLÇEĞİNİN GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2, 1 - 10, 30.06.2020

Melih Sever , Seyhan Özdemir , Osman Kürşat Acar

https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.577326

Cited By: 3

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı İşte Mutluluk Ölçeğini (Singh ve Aggarwal, 2018) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve geçerlik ve güvenirliğini sağlamaktır. Çalışma, bir alışveriş merkezinde farklı mağazalarda çalışan 260 kişi üzerinde yapılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda 12 maddeden ve dört alt boyuttan (içsel motivasyon, işten soğutan duygular, destekleyici örgütsel deneyimler ve destekleyici olmayan örgütsel deneyimler) oluşan modelin iyi uyum indekslerine sahip olduğu bulunmuştur (x²/df= 2.46, GFI= .93, CFI= .95, RMSEA= .07).  Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayıları ölçeğin içsel motivasyon alt boyutu için α= .80, işten soğutan duygular alt boyutu için α= .75, destekleyici örgütsel deneyimler alt boyutu için α= .81, destekleyici olmayan örgütsel deneyimler alt boyutu için α= .82 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonları .49 ile .76 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Bu sonuçlar ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mutluluk, İşte Mutluluk, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, DFA

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY OF HAPPINESS AT WORK SCALE

Öz

The purpose of this study is to adapt the Happiness at Work Scale (Singh & Aggarwal, 2018) to Turkish and to provide its validity and reliability. The study was conducted on 260 shopping centre workers. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that the model consisting of 12 items and four sub-dimensions (intrinsic motivation, work repulsive feelings, supportive organizational experiences, and unsupportive organizational experiences) had good fit indices (x²/df= 2.46, GFI= .93, CFI= .95, RMSEA= .07). The internal consistency reliability coefficients of the scale were α = .80 for the intrinsic motivation sub-dimension of the scale, α = .75 for the sub-dimension of work-repulsive feelings, α = .81 for the supportive organizational experiences sub-dimension, and α= .82 for the sub-dimension of unsupportive organizational experiences. The corrected item-total correlations of the scale are listed between .49 and .76. According to these results, it can be stated that the Turkish form of the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Happiness, Happiness at Work, Validity, Reliability, CFA

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• Arslan, Y., & Polat, S. (2017). Adaptation of well-being work scale to Turkish. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(4), 603-622. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2017.019.
• Basım, H. N., & Şeşen, H. (2009). Örgütsel Adalet Algısı-Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı İlişkisinde İş Tatmininin Aracılık Rolü. Osman Gazi Üniversitesi, 17, 806-812.
• Bassi, M., Bacher, G., Negri, L., & Delle Fave, A. (2013). The contribution of job happiness and job meaning to the well-being of workers from thriving and failing companies. Applied Research in Quality Of Life, 8(4), 427-448.
• Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross cultural research methods. New York: John Willey&Sons Pub.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
• Can, A. (2018). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 001-429.
• Doğan, T., & Akinci Çötok, N. (2011). Adaptation of the Short Form of the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire into Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(36), 165-172.
• Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 384-412.
• Fisher, C. D. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring wellbeing at work. Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, 1-25.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1985). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. N.J: Prentice Hall.
• Hassanzadeh, R., & Mahdinejad, G. (2013). Relationship between happiness and achievement motivation: A case of University students. Journal of Elementary Education, 23(1), 53–65.
• Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1073-1082.
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
• Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 117–125.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
• Mahon, E. G., Taylor, S. N., Boyatzis, R. E., Zelenski, J. M., Bonesso, S., & Humphrey, R. H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational engagement: Exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 129–139.
• Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W. ve Barret, K. C. (2004). SPSS for introductorystatistics: Use and interpretation, Second Edition, Lawrance Erlbaum Associates: London.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
• Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39.
• Salas-Vallina, A., & Alegre, J. (2018). Happiness at work: Developing a shorter measure. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-21.
• Salas-Vallina, A., Alegre, J., & Fernandez, R. (2017). Happiness at work and organisational citizenship behaviour: is organisational learning a missing link?. International Journal of Manpower, 38(3), 470-488.
• Singh, S., & Aggarwal, Y. (2018). Happiness at Work Scale: Construction and psychometric validation of a measure using mixed method approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(5), 1439-1463.
• Wesarat, P. O., Sharif, M. Y., & Majid, A. H. A. (2015). A conceptual framework of happiness at the workplace. Asian Social Science, 11(2), 78.
• Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. Istanbul Business Research, 46, 74-85.
• Zhang, J., & Kemp, S. (2009). The relationships between student debt and motivation, happiness, and academic achievement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 24–29.