SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Issue: 4

Adapting the Interprofessional Collaborative Leadership to the Turkish Context

Mustafa Çağrı Gürbüz(Harran Üniversitesi)0000-0003-1851-2672
Ramazan Özkul(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9757-6062
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-07
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall scale was above 0.90, indicating high internal consistency, while the subscales also demonstrated strong reliability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study aims to adapt the Interprofessional Collaborative Leadership (ICL) Scale into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall scale was above 0.90, indicating high internal consistency, while the subscales also demonstrated strong reliability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Achieving its intended purpose, the scale provides educators and researchers with a rigorous measurement tool to assess, foster, and monitor collaborative leadership attributes in interdisciplinary group projects and professional training programs.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:collaborative · collaborative leadership · leadership

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to adapt the Interprofessional Collaborative Leadership (ICL) Scale into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties. Collaborative leadership serves as a vital construct for assessing students' leadership and collaborative capabilities, particularly within interdisciplinary teamwork and project-based learning settings in higher education. Method: A cross-sectional survey design was employed with undergraduate students. Following rigorous translation and back-translation procedures for linguistic equivalence, content validity was verified by expert reviews. The four-factor structure comprising symbiotic relationships, mindfulness, capacity to lead, and shared assets was examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Internal consistency reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients. Findings: The results of the EFA and CFA confirmed a four-dimensional construct consistent with the original scale. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall scale was above 0.90, indicating high internal consistency, while the subscales also demonstrated strong reliability. Conclusion: The Turkish adaptation of the ICL Scale is an empirically valid and reliable instrument. Achieving its intended purpose, the scale provides educators and researchers with a rigorous measurement tool to assess, foster, and monitor collaborative leadership attributes in interdisciplinary group projects and professional training programs.

Özet

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, Mesleki İşbirlikçi Liderlik Ölçeği'ni Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin geçerlik ile güvenirlik düzeylerini incelemektir. İşbirlikçi liderlik, özellikle yükseköğretimdeki disiplinlerarası ekip çalışması ve proje tabanlı öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencilerin liderlik ve iş birliği becerilerini değerlendirmede temel bir araç işlevi görmektedir. Yöntem: Araştırma, lisans öğrencileriyle yürütülen kesitsel bir tarama desenine dayanmaktadır. Dil eşdeğerliği çeviri ve geri-çeviri protokolleriyle sağlandıktan sonra uzman değerlendirmeleriyle kapsam geçerliği incelenmiştir. Simbiyotik ilişkiler, farkındalık, liderlik kapasitesi ve paylaşılan varlıklar olmak üzere dört alt boyuttan oluşan ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini test etmek amacıyla açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) gerçekleştirilmiş; iç tutarlık düzeyi ise Cronbach alfa katsayısı ile hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular: AFA ve DFA sonuçları, orijinal ölçekle tutarlı dört boyutlu bir yapıyı doğrulamış ve uyum iyiliği değerlerinin kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin bütününe ilişkin Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0.90’ın üzerinde bulunarak yüksek bir iç tutarlılık sergilemiş, tüm alt boyutlar da güçlü bir güvenirlik düzeyi ortaya koymuştur. Sonuç: Araştırma amacına ulaşmış olup, Mesleki İşbirlikçi Liderlik Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu kanıtlamıştır. Ölçek; yükseköğretimde disiplinlerarası grup çalışmalarını, proje temelli süreçleri ve liderlik eğitimlerini değerlendirmek ile geliştirmek isteyen araştırmacılar ve eğitimciler için kuramsal ve pratik açıdan nitelikli bir ölçme aracı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gürbüz, M. Ç., Özkul, R. (2026). Adapting the Interprofessional Collaborative Leadership to the Turkish Context. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1727016

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. Almazovaite, M., Cohn, E., & Kumar, S. (2024). Group projects as spaces for leadership development in the liberal arts classroom: a case of American undergraduate students. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1480929.
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173.
  3. Archer, D., & Cameron, A. (2009). Collaborative leadership: How to succeed in an interconnected world. Routledge.
  4. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological bulletin, 112(3), 400.
  6. Bligh, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. (2006). The importance of self- and shared leadership in team-based knowledge work. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663105
  7. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
  9. Büyüköztürk, S., Akgün, Ö. E., Özkahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2).
  10. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  11. Byrne, B.M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling With EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition (2rd ed.). Routledge.
  12. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
  13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  14. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K., & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim, 4(1), 95–107.
  15. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 55(4), 584.
  16. D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205
  17. Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771–783.
  18. Duemer, L. S., Christopher, M., Hardin, F., Olibas, L., Rodgers, T., & Spiller, K. (2004). Case study of characteristics of effective leadership in graduate student collaborative work. Education, 124(4), 721–729.
  19. Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002
  20. Frydman, B., Wilson, A. L., & Wyer, J. C. (2000). The power of collaborative leadership: Lessons for the learning organization. Butterworth-Heinemann.
  21. Gittell, J. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance. Management Science, 48(11), 1408–1426.
  22. Gittell, J. H., Godfrey, M., & Thistlethwaite, J. (2013). Interprofessional collaborative practice and relational coordination: Improving healthcare through relationships. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27 (3), 2010–13. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012.73056.
  23. Hair, J.F, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  24. Harmon, H. L., & Johnson, J. D. (2024). Leading schools in rural communities: In search of collaborative leadership. In S. White, J. Downey, & M. Fuqua (Eds.), Sharing leadership stories in rural education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-8293-2_6
  25. Hu, L. T., & 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.
  26. Johnsen, M., Sjølie, E., & Johansen, V. (2023). Learning to Collaborate in a Project-based Graduate Course: A Multilevel Study of Student Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-023-09754-7.
  27. Karasar, N. (2014). Araştırmalarda Rapor Hazırlama. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  28. Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.4.590
  29. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
  30. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2006). Student leadership practices inventory (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  31. Kramer, M., & Crespy, D. (2011). Communicating collaborative leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.021
  32. Lindsay, D. R., Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2011). Shared Leadership in the Military: Reality, Possibility, or Pipedream? Military Psychology, 23(5), 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.600150
  33. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 391.
  34. Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003
  35. Morgenson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376
  36. Morrison, M., & Arthur, L. (2013). Leadership for inter-service practice: Collaborative leadership lost in translation? An exploration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(2), 179–198.
  37. Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2013). Shared leadership effectiveness in independent professional teams. European Management Journal, 31(5), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.05.005
  38. Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006
  39. Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
  40. Orchard, C., Pederson, L. L., Read, E., Mahler, C. ve Laschinger, H. (2018). Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS): Further testing and instrument revision. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 38(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000193
  41. Orchard, C., & Rykhoff, M. (2014). Collaborative leadership within interproffessional practice. In D. Forman, M. Jones, & J. Thistlethwaite, Leadership and collaboration: Further developments for interprofessional education (pp. 71–94). Houndsmills, Basingstoke, and Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  42. Orchard, C., Rykhoff, M., Sinclair, E. (2020). Interprofessional Collaborative Leadership in Health Care Teams: From Theorising to Measurement. In: Forman, D., Jones, M., Thistlethwaite, J. (eds) Sustainability and Interprofessional Collaboration. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40281-5_16
  43. Orchard, C., Sonibare, O., Morse, A., Collins, J., & Al-Hamad, A. (2017). Collaborative leadership, part 1: The nurse leader’s role within interprofessional teams. Nursing Leadership, 30(2), 14–25.
  44. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12690298
  45. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172
  46. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
  47. Raelin, J. (2006). Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(2), 152–168.
  48. Ramli, N., Suhaimi, S., & Kabilan, M. (2021). The Effects of an Authentic Collaborative Project on University Directing Students’ Learning Experiences. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5005
  49. Schumacker, E., & Lomax, G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. (4th ed.). Routledge.
  50. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (Vol. 4). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum associates.
  51. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapisal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulamalar [Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3(6), 49–74.
  52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. (6th ed). Ma: Pearson.
  53. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  54. van Schaik, S. M., O'Brien, B. C., Almeida, S. A., & Adler, S. R. (2014). Perceptions of interprofessional teamwork in low-acuity settings: A qualitative analysis. Medical Education, 48(6), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12424
  55. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531
  56. Zhang, R., Shi, J., & Zhang, J. (2023). Research on the Quality of Collaboration in Project Based Learning Based on Group Awareness. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511901.
  57. Zukarnain, Z., Wan, W., Hassan, C., Kamaruzaman, N., Zin, N., & Aziz, W. (2020). Examining Students’ Aptitude using Project-Based Learning through University-Industry Collaboration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1496. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1496/1/012013.