SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Psikoloji Yazıları / 2006 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18

A Validity and Reliability Study of the Group Environment Questionnaire

Grup Sargınlığı ÖLÇEĞİ: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

HATEM ÖCEL COLLEN
ORHAN AYDIN
Pages
19–32
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)

Based on these results it was concluded that Turkish version of the GEQ has sufficiently high reliability and validity to justify its use as a tool to measure cohesiveness in sports teams in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the present study was to investigate reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The questionnaire was developed by Carron and his colleagues (1985, 1987) based on their model of cohesiveness, and since then it has been the most frequently used measure of cohesiveness in sports teams.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on these results it was concluded that Turkish version of the GEQ has sufficiently high reliability and validity to justify its use as a tool to measure cohesiveness in sports teams in Turkey.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ). The questionnaire was developed by Carron and his colleagues (1985, 1987) based on their model of cohesiveness, and since then it has been the most frequently used measure of cohesiveness in sports teams. A total of 100 football, volleyball, handball and ice hokey players participated in the study. The original four factor structure of the GEQ (individual attraction to group-task, individual attraction to group-social, group integration-task, group integration- social) was replicated. The Cronbach's alfas obtained for total scores and subscales ranged from .79 to .69. Based on these results it was concluded that Turkish version of the GEQ has sufficiently high reliability and validity to justify its use as a tool to measure cohesiveness in sports teams in Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışma Carron ve arkadaşları (1985, 1987) tarafından geliştirilen ve spor takımlarıyla yürütülen araştırmalarda en fazla kullanılan ölçme araçlarından biri olan Grup Sargınlığı Ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışma, Ankara ili sınırları içinde faaliyet gösteren değişik futbol, voleybol, hentbol ve buz hokeyi takımlarında oynayan toplam 100 erkek sporcu ile yürütülmüştür. Elde edilen bulgular Türkçe ölçeğin orijinal ölçeğe uygun olarak dört faktörlü ( grubun görev çekiciliği, grubun sosyal çekiciliği, grubun görevde bütünleşmesi, grubun sosyal bütünleşmesi) bir yapısının olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin tümü ve alt ölçekleri için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa katsayıları .79 ile .69 arasında değişmektedir. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, Grup Sargınlığı Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun ülkemizde spor klüpleriyle yapılacak araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek düzeyde geçerlik ve güvenirliğe sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

COLLEN, H. Ö., AYDIN, O. (2006). A Validity and Reliability Study of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18, 19–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/128401

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Blanchard, C, Poon, P., Rodgers, W., & Pinel, B. (2000). Group Environment Questionnaire and its applicability in an exercise setting. Small Group Research, 31, 210-224.
  2. Boone, K. S., & Bietel, P. (1997). The effects of the win / loss on cohesion. Jornal of Sport Behaviour, 20,125-134
  3. Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assesing the cohesion of the teams: Validity of Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294.
  4. Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (2003). Cauting in inter­preting confirmatory analysis of the Group Environment Questionnaire: A response to Sullavin, Short, and Cramer. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 97,315-318.
  5. Carless, S. A. (2000). Replay to Carron and Brawley. Small Group Research, 31, 107-118.
  6. Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-81.
  7. Carron, A. V. (1988). Group dynamics in sport. London: Spondym. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conteptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-108.
  8. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. N., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.
  9. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to asses cohesion in sport teams: Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
  10. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1990). The effects of group size in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 177-190.
  11. Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From "field of forces" to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practise, 4, 7-26.
  12. Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness. Reply to Keyton and other critics of the con­struct. Small Group Research, 23, 242-250.
  13. Dyce, J.A., & Cornell, J. (1996). Factorial validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire among musi­cians. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 263-265.
  14. Ergin, C. (1993). Doktor ve hemşirelerde tükenmişlik ve Maslach Tükenmişlik Ölçeği'nin uygulanması. R. Bayraktar & İ. Dağ (Eds.) VII. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi bilimsel çalışmaları. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
  15. Ergin, C. (2000). Türkiyedeki örgütlerdeki çatışmaların çözümlenmesine ilişkin çalışmalar. Ayçan (Edt.), Türkiyede liderlik ve yönetim uygula­maları. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
  16. Eys, M. A., Hardy, J., Carron, A. V., & Beauchamp, M. R. (