SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 3

Teacher Sensitivity Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Öğretmen Duyarlılığı Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Nida Kılınç(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9092-9301
Şehnaz Ceylan(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9313-7353
Pages
3260–3281
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️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)

Finally, the AVE value for the total scale was calculated as .53, demonstrating a robust level of convergent validity at the overall scale level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to develop a scale to measure teachers’ awareness levels regarding the concept of teacher sensitivity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The draft form created for this purpose was submitted to expert opinions and the content validity rates of the items were determined in line with the feedback received.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, the AVE value for the total scale was calculated as .53, demonstrating a robust level of convergent validity at the overall scale level.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Öğretmen duyarlılığı · Mesleki gelişim · Okul öncesi eğitim

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a scale to measure teachers’ awareness levels regarding the concept of teacher sensitivity. The draft form created for this purpose was submitted to expert opinions and the content validity rates of the items were determined in line with the feedback received. Items with a factor loading below the threshold value of .30, set as the minimum criterion for item discrimination, were excluded from the study. Analyses revealed a structure comprising three sub-dimensions (responsive communication, personal sensitivity, and emotional sensitivity) with a total of 33 items. The internal consistency coefficient of the scale was calculated as .89. To assess the convergent validity, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were computed. The AVE values were found to be .57 for the first dimension, .53 for the second, and .51 for the third dimension. Finally, the AVE value for the total scale was calculated as .53, demonstrating a robust level of convergent validity at the overall scale level.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin öğretmen duyarlılığı kavramına ilişkin farkındalık düzeylerini belirleyebilmek amacıyla bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Bu amaçla oluşturulan taslak form, uzman görüşlerine sunulmuş ve alınan dönütler doğrultusunda maddelerin kapsam geçerlik oranları belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada, ölçek maddelerinin ayırt ediciliği için alt sınır değeri .30 olarak belirlenmiş; bu değerin altında faktör yüküne sahip maddeler çalışma kapsamından çıkarılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda “duyarlı iletişim”, “kişisel duyarlılık” ve “duygusal duyarlılık” olmak üzere üç alt boyut ve 33 maddeden oluşan bir yapı ortaya konmuştur. Ölçme aracının iç tutarlılık katsayısı .89 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçekteki yapıların yakınsak geçerlikleri Açıklanan Ortalama Varyans (AVE) değerleri hesaplanarak belirlenmiştir. İlk boyut için AVE değeri .57, ikinci boyut için .53, üçüncü boyut için ise .51 olarak belirlenmiştir. Son olarak, toplam ölçek için AVE değeri .53 olarak hesaplanmış ve toplam madde düzeyinde yeterli bir yakınsak geçerlik düzeyi tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılınç, N., Ceylan, Ş. (2025). Teacher Sensitivity Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 3, 3260–3281. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1652990

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Atılgan, H., Kan, A., & Doğan, N. (2013). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (6. b.). Anı.
  2. Baykul, Y. (2000). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test teorisi ve uygulaması. ÖSYM.
  3. Biernacki, P. & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
  4. Bloom, P. J. (2010). Measuring work attitudes in the early childhood setting: Technical manual for the Early Childhood Job Satisfaction Survey and Early Childhood Work Environment Survey (2. b.). McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, National Louis University.
  5. Bowlby, S. (2012). Recognising the time-space dimensions of care: Caringscapes and carescapes. Environment and Planning A, 44(9), 2101-2118.
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. P. Moen, G. H. Elder Jr., & K. Luscher (Ed.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development içinde (s. 617–649). American Psychological Association.
  7. Brunsek, A., Rodrigues, M., Sokolovic, N., Borairi, S., Janmohamed, Z., Jenkins, J. M., & Perlman, M. (2024). Can a brief professional development improve early childhood educators’ responsivity and interaction quality in child care centers? A cluster randomized controlled trial. Early Education and Development, 35(5), 1014-1031.
  8. Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientists. Taylor & Francis.
  9. Buhs, E. S., Rudasill, K. M., Kalutskaya, I. N., & Griese, E. R. (2015). Shyness and engagement: Contributions of peer rejection and teacher sensitivity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30(Part A), 12-19.
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2024). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (31. b.). Pegem Akademi.
  11. Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., Turnbull, K. P., & Petscher, Y. (2011). The impact of teacher responsivity education on preschoolers' language and literacy skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(4), 315-330.
  12. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  13. Cohen, R. J. & Swerdlik, M. E. (2013). Psikolojik test ve değerleme: Testlere ve ölçmeye giriş (E. Tavşancıl, Çev. Ed.). Nobel.
  14. Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information‐processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993-1002.
  15. Davies, C., Hendry, A., Gibson, S. P., Gliga, T., McGillion, M., & Gonzalez-Gomez, N. (2021). Early childhood education and care (ECEC) during COVID-19 boosts growth in language and executive function. Infant and Child Development, 30(4), e2241-e2215.
  16. DeVellis, R. F. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5. b.). Sage.
  17. Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I. Pegem Akademi.
  18. Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., Karabay, S. O., Tuncdemir, A., & Gest, S. (2018). Focusing on teacher-children relationship perception and children’s social emotional behaviors-the PATHS Preschool Program. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 3(1), 8-20.
  19. Gültekin, S. (2017). Testlerde kullanılacak madde türleri, hazırlama ilkeleri ve puanlaması. R. N. Demirtaşlı (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (4. b.) içinde (s. 145-222). Anı.
  20. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7. b.). Pearson.
  21. Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Ed.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention içinde (s. 59–72). National Association of School Psychologists.
  22. Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., & Faiza, J. (2014). Evidence for general and domain-specific elements of teacher-child interactions: Associations with preschool children’s development. Child Development, 85(3), 1257-1274.
  23. Hinkin, T. R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, 1(1), 161-179.
  24. Holmes, A. V. (2019). Voices from within: Teacher sensitivity in an early childhood elementary school. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
  25. Howes, C. & Smith, E. W. (1995). Relations among childcare quality, teacher behavior, children’s play activities, emotional security, and cognitive activity in childcare. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(4), 381-404.
  26. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Corwin.
  27. 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.
  28. Jennings, P. A. & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525.
  29. Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel.
  30. Kirk, E., Howlett, N., Pine, K. J., & Fletcher, B. C. (2013). To sign or not to sign? The impact of encouraging infants to gesture on infant language and maternal mind-mindedness. Child Development, 84(2), 574-590.
  31. Kline P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
  32. Kontos, S. & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teachers’ interactions with children: Why are they so important? Young Children, 52(2), 4–12.
  33. La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Findings from the prekindergarten year. Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409-426.
  34. Lower, J. K. & Cassidy, D. J. (2007). Childcare work environments: The relationship with learning environments. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 189–196.
  35. McGrath, K. F. & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1-17.
  36. MEB. (2024). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2023/'24 https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=629 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  37. Morrison, F. J. & Connor, C. M. (2002). Understanding schooling effects on early literacy: A working research strategy. Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 493-500.
  38. O’Connor, E. & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340–369.
  39. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. L. (2012). The CLASS-Secondary manual. University of Virginia.
  40. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) Manual, Pre-K. Paul H. Brookes.
  41. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Voorhees, M. D., Snell, M. E., & La Paro, K. M. (2003). Improving the sensitivity and responsivity of preservice teachers toward young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(3), 151–163.
  42. Sabol, T. J. & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 213-231.
  43. Saraçlı, S. (2011). Faktör analizinde yer alan döndürme metotlarının karşılaştırmalı incelenmesi üzerine bir uygulama. Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(3), 22-26.
  44. Seo, S. & Song, H. (2023). Toddler–teacher interaction and teachers’ sensitivity as predictors of toddlers’ development during COVID‑19: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1161947.
  45. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7. b.). Pearson.
  46. Tezbaşaran, A. A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Türk Psikologlar Dernegi.
  47. Virtanen, T., Pakarinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2018). A validation study of Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary in the Finnish school context. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(6), 849-880.