SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 20 Sayı: 2

Content Analysis of Graduate Theses on Mediating Variables in Educational Sciences

Eğitim Bilimlerinde Aracı Değişken Konusunda Yapılmış Lisansüstü Tezlerin İçerik Analizi

Ahmet Alperen Çağlayan(Nevşehir Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler İl Müdürlüğü)0009-0005-4518-8435
Emine Özenç(NİĞDE ÖMER HALİSDEMİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3161-4251
Pages
199–222
Publication Date
2024-08-22
🏛️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)

According to the results of the research, it was determined that the theses in our country were generally conducted at the master's level, in state universities, using quantitative method and relational survey design.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of postgraduate theses on mediating variables in the field of educational sciences in our country according to years, postgraduate levels, language used, universities, institutes, and departments; their aims, methods and designs used, population-sample types and sizes, data collection tools, mediation model, how mediation analysis is performed, and the type of mediation with a holistic perspective and to reveal the existing situation by making a comparative analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data of this study were compiled from the studies conducted between 2004 and 2023 and found in the archive of the Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).The research was conducted using qualitative research method, the data were collected through document analysis and the data were analyzed by content analysis method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the research, it was determined that the theses in our country were generally conducted at the master's level, in state universities, using quantitative method and relational survey design.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Eğitim bilimleri · aracı değişken · aracılık modeli

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of postgraduate theses on mediating variables in the field of educational sciences in our country according to years, postgraduate levels, language used, universities, institutes, and departments; their aims, methods and designs used, population-sample types and sizes, data collection tools, mediation model, how mediation analysis is performed, and the type of mediation with a holistic perspective and to reveal the existing situation by making a comparative analysis. The data of this study were compiled from the studies conducted between 2004 and 2023 and found in the archive of the Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).The research was conducted using qualitative research method, the data were collected through document analysis and the data were analyzed by content analysis method. According to the results of the research, it was determined that the theses in our country were generally conducted at the master's level, in state universities, using quantitative method and relational survey design. The aim of the theses was generally to examine the mediating effect of a third variable on the relationship between independent and dependent variables, and to adapt and develop scales. The theses were generally constructed in the simple mediation model, the models were analyzed with the structural equation model, and the significance of the mediation effect was tested with the Bootstrap method. The results obtained showed that the relationships established were generally in the role of partial mediation and full mediation.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı ülkemizde eğitim bilimleri alanında aracı değişken konularında yapılmış lisansüstü tezlerin yıllara, lisansüstü düzeylere, kullanılan dile, üniversitelere, enstitülere, ana bilim dallarına göre dağılımını; amaçlarını, kullanılan yöntem ve desenleri, evren-örneklem türlerini ve büyüklüklerini, veri toplama araçlarını, aracılık modelini, aracılık analizinin nasıl yapıldığını ve aracılık türünü bütüncül bir bakış açısı ile belirlemek ve var olan durumu karşılaştırmalı bir analiz yaparak ortaya koymaktır. Bu çalışmanın verileri, 2004 ile 2023 arasında gerçekleştirilmiş ve Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) Tez Merkezinde bulunan çalışmalardan derlenmiştir.Araştırma nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiş olup veriler doküman incelemesi yoluyla toplanmış ve veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen araştırma sonuçlarına göre, ülkemizde yapılan tezlerin genellikle yüksek lisans düzeyinde, devlet üniversitelerinde yapıldığı, nicel yöntem ve ilişkisel tarama deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirildiği belirlenmiştir. Tezlerin amacı genellikle, bağımsız ve bağımlı değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiye üçüncü bir değişkenin aracılık etkisini incelemek, ölçek uyarlamak ve geliştirmek olmuştur. Tezler genellikle basit aracılık modelinde oluşturulmuş, modellerin analizleri yapısal eşitlik modeli ile yapılmış, yapılan analizlerde aracılık etkisinin anlamlılığı Bootstrap yöntemi ile test edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, kurulan ilişkilerin genellikle kısmi aracılık ve tam aracılık rolünde olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çağlayan, A. A., Özenç, E. (2024). Content Analysis of Graduate Theses on Mediating Variables in Educational Sciences. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 2, 199–222. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.1457330

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Baron, M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
  2. Burmaoğlu, S., Polat, M., & Meydan, C. M. (2013). Örgütsel davranış alanında ilişkisel analiz yöntemleri ve türkçe yazında aracılık modeli kullanımı üzerine bir inceleme. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 13-26.
  3. Clogg, C.C., Petkova, E, & Shihadeh, E.S. (1992). Sta¬tistical methods for analyzing collapsibility in regression models. Journal of Educational Statistics 17(1): 51–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165079
  4. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2020), Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (4. baskı). Dede, Y., & Demir S.B.(Eds.), Anı Yayıncılık.
  5. Denicolo, P., & Becker, L. (2012). Developing research proposals. Sage Publications.
  6. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
  7. Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10(2), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0109-6
  8. Fairchild, A. J., MacKinnon, D. P., Taborga, M. P. & Taylor, A. B. (2009). r2 effect-size measures for me¬diation analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2). 486–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.486
  9. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
  10. Freedman L.S. & Schatzkin A. (1992). Sample size for studying ıntermediate endpoints within ınterven¬tion trials of observational studies. American Jo¬urnal of Epidemiology, 136(9), 1148–1159. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116581.
  11. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x.
  12. Gürbüz, S. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde aracı ve düzenleyici etki analizleri (2. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  13. Gürbüz, S., & Bayık, M.E. (2021). Aracılık modellerinin analizinde yeni yaklaşım: Baron ve Kenny’nin yöntemi hâlâ geçerli mi?. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 36(88), 1-14, https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd1300443320191125m000031.
  14. Gürbüz, S. & Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araş¬tırma yöntemleri (5. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  15. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (second edition). The Guilford Press.
  16. Kaçar Başaran, S., Gökdağ, C., & Erdoğan Yıldırım, Z., (2022). How does cognitive flexibility associate with depressive symptoms? a multiple mediation model including emotion dysregulation and problem-solving. Yaşam Becerileri Psikoloji Dergisi, 6(11), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.31461/ybpd.1110174
  17. Karasar, N., (2019), Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (34.baskı). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  18. Kavgacı, H., & Çalık, T. (2017). Öğretmenlerin işle bütünleşme düzeylerinin örgütsel ve bireysel değişkenlerle ilişkisi: bir çoklu aracılık modeli. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 23 (2), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1452/kuey.2017.008
  19. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (fourth edition), 233-265. McGraw-Hill.
  20. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (fourth edition). The Guilford Press.
  21. Maassen G.H. & Bakker A.B. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models definitions and ınterp¬retations. Sociological Methods&Research, 30(2): 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124101030002004
  22. MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3.
  23. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83.
  24. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593-614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.
  25. Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W.T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.372
  26. Örs Özdil, S. (2017). Tekli ve çoklu aracılık modellerinde aracı değişken etkisinin bk, sobel, bootstrap yöntemleriyle karşılaştırılması (pısa 2012 matematik okuryazarlığı), (Tez No: 468272). [Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]
  27. Pardo, A., & Román, M. (2013). Reflections on the Baron and Kenny model of statistical mediation. Anales de Psicología, 29(2), 614-623.
  28. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717-731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
  29. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879.
  30. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psycho¬logy: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
  31. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422- 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
  32. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology, 290-312. American Sociological Association.
  33. Ullman, J. B. (2013). Structural equation modeling. In Tabachnick. B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (Eds.). Using multivariate statistics (6th edition), 681-786. Pearson Education.
  34. Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87, 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1
  35. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Güncellenmiş 12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  36. YÖK (2023). YÖK sayısal veriler (2023, 17 Nisan).