SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1

Naturalistic Decision Making Scale (NDMS): Conceptual Description and Scale Development Study

Doğal Karar Verme Ölçeği (DKVÖ): Kavramsal Tanım ve Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Mustafa SUNDU
Okan YAŞAR
Pages
101–115
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)

As a result of the analysis, a six-item “Natural Decision-Making Scale” was developed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to develop a “Natural Decision Making Scale” that can be used to measure naturalistic decision-making behaviors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Validity and reliability studies of the scale were conducted with the participation of 554 managers (63 firefighters, 143 police officers, 12 emergency medicine technicians, 184 military officers and 152 managers) with at least 10 years of experience.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, a six-item “Natural Decision-Making Scale” was developed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a “Natural Decision Making Scale” that can be used to measure naturalistic decision-making behaviors. Validity and reliability studies of the scale were conducted with the participation of 554 managers (63 firefighters, 143 police officers, 12 emergency medicine technicians, 184 military officers and 152 managers) with at least 10 years of experience. In the scale development study, explanatory factor analysis, content validation, parallel tests item, discriminant and convergent validation tests conducted. Cronbach's alpha reliability value (α = 0.809) was calculated. As a result of the analysis, a six-item “Natural Decision-Making Scale” was developed.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı doğal karar verme davranışlarını ölçmede kullanılabilecek “Doğal Karar Verme Ölçeği”ni geliştirmektir. Ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışmaları en az 10 yıl deneyimi bulunan 554 yöneticinin (63 itfaiyeci, 143 polis, 12 acil servis ekibi, 184 askeri personel ve 152 yönetici) katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmasında açıklayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmış, kriter geçerliliği yapılmış, madde ayırt edicilikleri belirlenmiş, paralel test yapılmış ve Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik değeri (α=0.809) hesaplanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, altı maddelik “doğal karar verme ölçeği” geliştirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SUNDU, M., YAŞAR, O. (2020). Naturalistic Decision Making Scale (NDMS): Conceptual Description and Scale Development Study. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1, 101–115. https://ajindex.com/articles/125314

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Agor, W. H. (1986). The logic of intuitive decision making: A research-based approach for top management. Quorum Books. Baron, J. (1998). Judgment misguided: Intuition and error in public decision making. Oxford University Press.
  2. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815-824.
  4. Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological science, 4(4), 215-220.
  5. Beach, L. R., ve Lipshitz, R. (2017). Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making. Harris, D., Li Chin, W. (Ed) Decision making in aviation içinde (85-102 ss). London: Routledge. Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H. ve Tversky, A. (1988). Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa ve A. Tversky (Ed.), Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions içinde (9–30 ss). Cambridge University Press.
  6. Bell, D.E., Howard R. ve Amos T. (1988). Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Boin, A., Hart, P. T., Stern, E. ve Sundelius, B. (2005). The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure” Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bordley, R.F. (2001). Naturalistic decision making and prescriptive decision theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(5), 355-357.
  9. Buchanan, L. ve Andrew O.C. (2006). "A brief history of decision making."Harvard Business Review, 84.1: 32. Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81. Chin, W.W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 1. Cioffi, J. (2012). Expanding the scope of decision-making research for nursing and midwifery practice. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(4), 481-489.
  10. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. ve Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 1. Dowie, J., ve Elstein, A. (Eds.). (1988). Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Edwards, W. (2009). The theory of decision making. Oxford University Press.
  12. Edwards, W., Newman, J. R., Snapper, K., ve Seaver, D. (1982). Multiattr