SavedAdd your journal

Journals / HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 28

THE TURKISH ADAPTATION OF THE GENDER DISCRIMINATION INVENTORY (GDI): RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE

TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET AYRIMCILIĞI ENVANTERİNİN TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI: GÜVENİRLİK, GEÇERLİK VE ÖLÇÜM DEĞİŞMEZLİĞİ

Ayşe Hazal Dündar(USAK UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8974-9680
Hacer Harlak(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9121-3532
Pages
159–180
Publication Date
2026-10-14
🏛️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 results of the statistical analyses provided satisfactory evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the Turkish versions of the scales in the present sample of adult women.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to translate the Gender Discrimination Inventory (GDI), which consists of two scales, originally developed by Kira et al. (2015), into Turkish and assess its psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity in a Turkish sample.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected from 673 adult women aged 20-64 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the statistical analyses provided satisfactory evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the Turkish versions of the scales in the present sample of adult women.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Toplumsal cinsiyet ayrımcılığıyla baş etme. · Toplumsal cinsiyet ayrımcılığı · Ölçüm değişmezliği

Abstract

This study aims to translate the Gender Discrimination Inventory (GDI), which consists of two scales, originally developed by Kira et al. (2015), into Turkish and assess its psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity in a Turkish sample. The inventory consists of the Gender Discrimination Scale (GDS) and the Gender Discrimination Coping Scale (GDCS). Data were collected from 673 adult women aged 20-64 years. The Brislin back-translation method was used to translate the scale. The psychometric properties of the GDI were then assessed in terms of construct validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), criterion-related validity (correlation analyses), measurement invariance (multigroup confirmatory factor analysis), and reliability measures (McDonald’s omega, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency, and test-retest correlation coefficients). The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that the original three-factor structure of both measurement instruments was preserved in the sample of adult Turkish women without any item omissions. Criteria-related validity tests demonstrated that an increase in the level of perceived gender discrimination was significantly associated with a decrease in self-esteem; in the context of coping strategies, the internalization and conflict subscales showed a negative correlation with self-esteem, while the resistance subscale exhibited a positive correlation. Additionally, the results of the multi-group confirmatory factor analysis indicated that structural and metric invariance were established for both scales with respect to age and marital status. Concerning employment status, the analysis revealed structural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance for the GDS, and structural, metric, and scalar invariance for the GDCS. Reliability analyses generally demonstrated that the total scale scores and the majority of the subscales exhibited satisfactory internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The results of the statistical analyses provided satisfactory evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the Turkish versions of the scales in the present sample of adult women.

Özet

Çalışma, Kira vd. (2015) tarafından geliştirilen, iki ölçekten oluşan Toplumsal Cinsiyet Ayrımcılığı Envanteri’ni (TCAE) Türkçeye çevirmeyi ve Türk örnekleminde güvenirlik ve geçerlik açısından psikometrik özelliklerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Envanter, Toplumsal Cinsiyet Ayrımcılığı Ölçeği (TCAÖ) ile Toplumsal Cinsiyet Ayrımcılığı ile Baş Etme Ölçeği’nden (TCABÖ) oluşmaktadır. Veriler 20-64 yaş aralığındaki 673 yetişkin kadından toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin çevirisi için Brislin çeviri-geri çeviri yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonrasında TCAE’nin psikometrik özellikleri, yapı geçerliği (açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi), kriter geçerliği (korelasyon analizi), ölçüm değişmezliği (çok gruplu doğrulayıcı faktör analizi) ve güvenirlik ölçütleri (McDonald’s omega, Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık ve test-tekrar test korelasyon katsayıları) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları, her iki ölçüm aracının orijinal üç faktörlü yapısının, herhangi bir madde eksilmesi olmaksızın yetişkin Türk kadın örnekleminde korunduğunu doğrulamıştır. Kriter geçerlik testleri, algılanan toplumsal cinsiyet ayrımcılığı düzeyindeki artışın özsaygı düzeyindeki düşüşle anlamlı bir şekilde ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur; başa çıkma stratejileri bağlamında, içselleştirme ve çatışma alt ölçekleri özsaygı ile negatif bir korelasyon gösterirken, direnme alt ölçeği pozitif bir korelasyon sergilemiştir. Ayrıca, çoklu grup doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları, her iki ölçekte de yaş ve medeni durum açısından yapısal ve metrik değişmezliğin sağlandığını göstermektedir. İstihdam durumu açısından ise TCAÖ için yapısal, metrik, skalar ve katı değişmezlik; TCABÖ için yapısal, metrik ve skalar değişmezlik düzeylerinin sağlandığını göstermiştir. Güvenirlik analizleri genel olarak, toplam ölçek puanlarının ve alt ölçeklerin çoğunun tatmin edici bir iç tutarlılık ve test-tekrar test güvenilirliği sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. İstatistiksel analizlerin sonuçları, ölçeklerin Türkçe formlarının mevcut yetişkin kadın örneklemindeki psikometrik özelliklerine ilişkin tatmin edici kanıtlar sunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dündar, A. H., Harlak, H. (2026). THE TURKISH ADAPTATION OF THE GENDER DISCRIMINATION INVENTORY (GDI): RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE. HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 28, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.1971095

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Albayrak, S., & Gülnar, E. (2018). Validity and reliability study of Turkish version of the schedule of sexist events. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(22), 4155-4163. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.862
  2. Aycan, Z., Bayazit, M., Berkman, Y., & Boratav, H. B. (2012). Attitudes towards women managers: Development and validation of a new measure with Turkish samples. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(3), 426-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.557860
  3. Basford, T., Offermann, L., & Behrend, T. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420
  4. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
  5. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  6. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  7. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
  8. Coster, W. J., & Mancini, M. C. (2015). Recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Revista de Terapia Ocupacional da Universidade de São Paulo, 26(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-6149.v26i1p50-57
  9. Delevi, R., & Bugay, A. (2013). Assessing reliability and validity of the 15-item short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS) among Turkish students. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 14(1), 263-272. http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol14/iss1/16
  10. Doğan, T. (2011). İki boyutlu benlik saygısı: Kendini Sevme ve Öz-yeterlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlaması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 126-137.
  11. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(3), 491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  12. Haase, J. E. (2004). The adolescent resilience model as a guide to interventions. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 21(5), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454204267922
  13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  14. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
  15. Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R –A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(7), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.7275/qazy-2946
  16. Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Cortina, L. M. (2016). Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1588–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313506466
  17. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2019). Benlik, aile ve insan gelişimi: kültürel psikoloji (5th ed.). Koç University.
  18. Kim, E., & Park, H. (2018). Perceived gender discrimination, belief in a just world, self-esteem, and depression in Korean working women: A moderated mediation model. In Women’s Studies International Forum, 69, 143-150. Pergamon.
  19. Kira, I., Hanaa, S., & Bujold-Bugeaud, M. (2015). Gender discrimination (GD): A conceptual trauma-based framework for GD and the development of gender discrimination inventory. Psychology, 6, 2041-2070. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.616201
  20. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
  21. Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The Schedule of Sexist Events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4), 439-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00086.x
  22. Krieger, N., Smith, K., Naishadham, D., Hartman, C., & Barbeau, E. M. (2005). Experiences of discrimination: Validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Social Science & Medicine, 61(7), 1576-1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.006
  23. Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111-121.
  24. OECD. (2024). Labour statistics. Data Explorer OECD. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_REG_LABOUR%40DF_LAB&df[ag]=OECD.CFE.EDS&df[vs]=2.4&dq=A.EMP_RATIO.Y15T64._T.&lom=LASTNPERIODS&lo=5&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false
  25. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
  26. Qadir, F., Khan, M. M., Medhin, G., & Prince, M. (2011). Male gender preference, female gender disadvantage as risk factors for psychological morbidity in Pakistani women of childbearing age-a life course perspective. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 745. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-745
  27. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2003). Sexism: Attitudes towards women and men and ambivalent sexism theory. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 6(11-12), 1–20.
  28. Schmitt, M., Branscombe, N., & Postmes, T. (2003). Women’s emotional responses to the pervasiveness of gender discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.147
  29. Sürücü, L., Şeşen, H. & Maslakçı, A. (2023). Regression, Mediation/Moderation, and Structural Equation Modeling with SPSS, AMOS, and PROCESS Macro, Livre de Lyon.
  30. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  31. Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2001). Two-dimensional self-esteem: Theory and measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(5), 653-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00169-0
  32. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  33. Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 842-849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007
  34. Uğurlu, D., & Mamatoğlu, N. (2016). Kadının çalışmasına yönelik ayrımcılık ölçeği ve çalışan kadına yönelik ayrımcılık ölçeği geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. I. Sosyal Psikoloji Kongresi, Başkent Üniversitesi, 680-697.
  35. United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. (2024). Gender Inequality Index. UNDP Data Center. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII
  36. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2021). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In D. Matsumoto & H. C. Hwang (Eds.), Culture and psychology (pp. 15-45). Oxford University Press.
  37. Van de Vijver, F. J., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2005). Conceptual and methodological issues in adapting tests. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 39-63). Psychology Press.
  38. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
  39. World Health Organization [WHO] (2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments.
  40. Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.7275/mhqa-cd89
  41. Zhou, L. (2023). Research on the status quo of female gender discrimination. SHS Web of Conferences 180, 03008. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318003008
  42. OECD. (2024). Labour statistics. Data Explorer OECD. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_REG_LABOUR%40DF_LAB&df[ag]=OECD.CFE.EDS&df[vs]=2.4&dq=A.EMP_RATIO.Y15T64._T.&lom=LASTNPERIODS&lo=5&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false