SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

ADAPTATION OF SELF CONCEALMENT SCALE TO THE TURK CULTURE: IT’S RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

KENDİNİ SAKLAMA ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN UYARLANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Şerife Terzi
Hüdayar Cihan Güngör
Gülsüm Sezgi Erdayı
Pages
645–660
Publication Date
2010-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Considering reliability and validity study results, it can be concluded that SCS was a valid and reliable instrument.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the reliability and validity of the Turkish adaptation of “Self Concealment Scale” (SCS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample consisted of 248 undergraduates from the Faculty of Education, Gazi University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering reliability and validity study results, it can be concluded that SCS was a valid and reliable instrument.
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kendini saklama · kendini saklama ölçeği · üniversite öğrencisi

Abstract

This study investigates the reliability and validity of the Turkish adaptation of “Self Concealment Scale” (SCS). The sample consisted of 248 undergraduates from the Faculty of Education, Gazi University. There were 10 five-point Likert type items. The construct validity of SCS was examined by factor analysis. There was a significant relationship between scores on SCS and Self Disclosure Scale (r = -.25) to test criteria validity. Cronbach alpha coefficient was .82; test-retest correlation coefficient was r = .72. Item-total correlations coefficiencies were .25-.66. Considering reliability and validity study results, it can be concluded that SCS was a valid and reliable instrument.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Kendini Saklama Ölçeği’nin (KSÖ), Türkçeye uyarlanması, ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Araştırma grubu 2006–2007 öğretim yılında Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören 248 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. 10 maddeli 5’li Likert tipi olan bu ölçeğin yapı geçerliği faktör analizi ile saptanmıştır. Yapılan ölçüt geçerliği çalışmasında ise KSÖ ile Kendini Açma Ölçeği arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur (r = -.25). Ölçeğin Cronbach alpha güvenirlik katsayısı .82; test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı r = .72 ve madde toplam korelasyonları ise .25 ile .66 arasında bulunmuştur. Analizler sonucunda, KSÖ’nün üniversite öğrencilerinin kendini saklama düzeylerini belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğuna karar verilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Terzi, Ş., Güngör, H. C., Erdayı, G. S. (2010). ADAPTATION OF SELF CONCEALMENT SCALE TO THE TURK CULTURE: IT’S RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 645–660. https://ajindex.com/articles/1164080

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Affifi, W.A. ve Guerrero, L.K. (2000). Motivations underlying topic avoidance ın close relationships. IN W. A. Afifi (Ed.), Balancing The Secrets Of Private Disclosures (pp. 165–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Cepeta-Benito A. ve Short, P. (1998). Self concealment, avoidance of psychological services, and perceived likelihood of seeking professional help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 58–64.
  3. Cramer, K. M. ve Lake, R. P. (1998). The preference for solitude scale.
  4. Psychometric properties and factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 193–199.
  5. Cramer, K. M. ve Barry, J. E. (1999). Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the self-concealment scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 629–637.
  6. Ichiyama, M. A., Colbert, D., Laramore, H., Heim, M., Carone, K. ve Schmidt, J. (1993). Self-concealment and correlates of adjustment ın college students. Journal of College Students Psychotherapy, 7, 55–68.
  7. Kahn, J. H. ve Hessling, R. M. (2001). Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclosure psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 41-65.
  8. Kelly, A. E. ve Achter, J. A. (1995). Self-concealment and attitudes toward counseling ın university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 40–46.
  9. Larson, D. G. ve Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self- concealment: Conceptualization, measurement and health ımplications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 439–455.
  10. Larson, D. G. (1993). Self-concealment: Implications for stres and emphaty ın oncology care. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 11, 1–16.
  11. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  12. Pennebaker, J. W. ve Beall, S. (1986). Cognitive, emotional and physiological components of confiding: Behavioral inhibition and disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 274–281.
  13. Ritz, T. ve Dahme, B. (1996). Repression, self-concealment and rationality/ emotional questionnaire measures of defensive coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 95–102. The
  14. correspondence between three
  15. Selçuk, Z. (1989). Üniversite öğrencilerinin kendini açma davranışları. Doktora tezi, Hacettepe
  16. Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  17. Spiegel, D. (1992). Effects of psychosocial support on patients with metastic breast cancer. Journal of Psyhosocial Oncology, 10, 113–120.
  18. Vrij, A., Nunkoosing, K., Paterson, B., Oosterwegel, A ve Soukara, S. (2002).
  19. Characteristics of secrets and the fraquency, reasons and effects of secrets keeping and disclosure. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 56–70.