SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2024 / Sayı: 72

ACADEMICIANS' ARROGANCE ORIENTATION SCALE (AAOS): VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

AKADEMİSYENLERİN KİBİR YÖNELİMİ ÖLÇEĞİ (AKYÖ): GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Mesut Demirbilek(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0002-7570-7807
Tuba Akpolat(MİMAR SİNAN GÜZEL SANATLAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5907-6972
Sıtar Keser(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0001-9630-3855
Pages
464–488
Publication Date
2024-10-31
🏛️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, it was revealed that the Arrogance Orientation of Academics Scale is a reliable and valid measurement tool that will reveal the arrogance orientations of academicians with the dimensions of discrediting, superior approach, and comparison.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure the arrogance orientations of academicians.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of the study consisted of undergraduate-graduate students in Istanbul in 2023 and 314 undergraduate-graduate students who graduated in the same year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it was revealed that the Arrogance Orientation of Academics Scale is a reliable and valid measurement tool that will reveal the arrogance orientations of academicians with the dimensions of discrediting, superior approach, and comparison.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Akademisyen · kibir · üniversite

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure the arrogance orientations of academicians. In order to realise this aim, scale development stages were followed; firstly, an item pool was created by getting support from the literature. Then, the draft form was presented to the expert opinion and improvements were made within the scope of content validity and comprehensibility. The sample of the study consisted of undergraduate-graduate students in Istanbul in 2023 and 314 undergraduate-graduate students who graduated in the same year. For the validation of the structure of the scale, 245 undergraduate-graduate students and graduates were selected as the sample. Exploratory factor analysis was performed for the construct validity of the scale, and it was seen that the Arrogance Orientation of Academics Scale exhibited a structure consisting of three factors. These three factors explain 69% of the total variance. The internal consistency coefficient for the whole scale is .96. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to verify the structure and it was seen that the structure of the arrogance orientation of academics scale consisting of twenty-two items and three dimensions was confirmed. As a result, it was revealed that the Arrogance Orientation of Academics Scale is a reliable and valid measurement tool that will reveal the arrogance orientations of academicians with the dimensions of discrediting, superior approach, and comparison.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı akademisyenlerin kibir yönelimlerini ölçmeye yarayan geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçeğin geliştirilmesidir. Bu amacı gerçekleştirmek için ölçek geliştirme aşamaları takip edilerek; öncelikle alan yazından destek alınarak madde havuzu oluşturulmuştur. Ardından taslak form, uzman görüşüne sunularak kapsam geçerliliği ve anlaşılırlık kapsamında iyileştirmeler yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini 2023 yılında İstanbul ilinde bulunan lisans-lisansüstü öğrencileriyle, aynı yıl mezun olmuş olan lisans-lisansüstü toplam 314 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Ölçeğin yapısının doğrulanması için ise 245 lisans-lisansüstü öğrenci ve mezun örneklem olarak seçilmiştir. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği için açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve Akademisyenlerin Kibir Yönelimi Ölçeği’nin üç faktörden oluşan bir yapı sergilediği görülmüştür. Söz konusu üç faktör toplam varyansın %69’unu açıklamaktadır. Ölçeğin tamamı için iç tutarlılık katsayısı .96’dır. Ortaya konan yapının doğrulanması için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve yirmi iki madde, üç boyuttan oluşan akademisyenlerin kibir yönelimi ölçeğinin yapısının doğrulandığı görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak, Akademisyenlerin Kibir Yönelimi Ölçeği’nin; itibarsızlaştırma, üstenci yaklaşım ve kıyaslama boyutları ile akademisyenlerin kibir yönelimlerini ortaya koyacak güvenilir ve geçerli bir ölçme aracı olduğu ortaya konmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirbilek, M., Akpolat, T., Keser, S. (2024). ACADEMICIANS' ARROGANCE ORIENTATION SCALE (AAOS): VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 72, 464–488. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1460393

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Akcan Tüfekci, A., Malkoç, S., Kızıltan, Ö. (2018). Akademisyenlere göre akademi ve akademik kültür. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (1), 569-591.
  2. Allen, N. J., &Meyer, J. P. (1993). Organizational commitment: Evidence of career stage effects? Journal of Business Research, 26(1), 49-61. Doi:10.1016/01482963(93)90042-N
  3. Bauer, J., Cho, E., Johnson, R. E., & Silverman, S. B. (2008). Acting superior but actually inferior? Relationships of arrogance with motivation and cognitive ability. Paper presented at the 2008 Southern Management Association Meeting, St. Pete Beach, FL.
  4. Bozacı, İ., Çiftçi, E. G., & Gürer, A. (2018). Algılanan yönetici kibrinin, satış elemanlarının tükenmişlik ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki etkisine yönelik bir alan araştırması, Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(1), 205-226.
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (29th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  6. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319. Doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  7. Cleary, M., Walter, G., Sayers, J., Lopez, V., &Hungerford, C. (2015) Arrogance in the workplace: implications for mental health nurses, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 36(4), 266-271, Doi: 10.3109/01612840.2014.955934
  8. Cowan, N., Adams, E. J., Bhangal, S., Corcoran, M., Decker, R., Dockter, C. E., Eubank, A. T., &Gann, C. L. vd. (2019). Foundations of arrogance: A broad survey and framework for research. Review of General Psychology. 23(4), 1-19. Doi:10.1177/1089268019877138
  9. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (5th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  10. Demirbilek, M, Keser, S., &Akpolat, T. (2022). An evaluation of arrogance orientations of academicians in higher education according to student and alumni opinions. Higher Education Studies, 12(1), 84-95. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v12n1p84
  11. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  12. Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (2019). A treatise on the jackass in academe: How arroganceand self-centeredness destroy the credibility of higher education. Journal of Intercultural Management and Ethics, (2), 9-27.
  13. Haan, P.,Britt, M. M., & Weinstein, A. (2007). Business students’ perceptions of arrogance in academia. College Student Journal, 41(1), 82-92.
  14. Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2000). Accounts for success as determinants of perceived arrogance and modesty. Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 215–236. Doi: 10.1023/A:1005666212320
  15. Hareli, S.,Weiner, B., &Yee, J. (2006). Honesty doesn’t always pay—The role of honesty of accounts for success made in an educational setting in inferences of modesty and arrogance. Social Psychology of Education, 9(2),119–38. Doi: 10.1007/s11218-006-0004-6
  16. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
  17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
  18. Herbin, C. V. (2018). Measuring organizational arrogance: Development and validation of a theory-based instrument. Regent University.
  19. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  20. Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. SAGE Publications.
  21. Johnson, R. E.,Silverman, S. B., Shyamsunder, A., Swee, H. Y., Rodopman, O. B., Cho, E., & Bauer, J. (2010). Acting superior but actually inferior? Correlates and consequences of workplace arrogance. Human Performance, 23(5), 403-427. Doi: 10.1080/08959285.2010.515279
  22. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Bilim Kitap Kırtasiye Yayınevi.
  23. Kelley, T.L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057123
  24. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  25. Last, J. M. (2007). The dictionary of public health. Oxford University Press.
  26. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, (28), 563–575.
  27. Leary, M. R., Bednarski, R., Hammon, D., & Duncan, T. (1997). Blowhards, snobs, and narcissists: Interpersonal reactions to excessive egoism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 111–131). New York, NY: Plenum.
  28. Lynch, M. P. (2017, June 5). Teaching humility in an age of arrogance. Chronicle Review. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Teaching-Humility-in-an-Ageof/240266 adresinden edinilmiştir.
  29. McCowan, R. J., & McCowan, S. C. (1999). Item analysis for criterion-referenced tests. State University of New York Press.
  30. Milyavsky, M., Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., & Schori-Eyal, N. (2017). Evidence for arrogance: On the relative importance of expertise, outcome, and manner. PloS one, 12(7), e0180420.
  31. Rozalia, G. M. (2007). Non probabilistic sampling use in qualitative marketing research. Haphazard sampling. Volunteer sampling. Seria Ştiinţe Economice. (16), 920 – 925.
  32. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  33. Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., &Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19 (2), 385-417. Doi: 10.1016/0149-2063(93)90058-U
  34. Silverman, S. B., Johnson, R. E., Mc Connell, N., &Carr, A. (2012). Arrogance: A formula for leadership failure. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50 (1), 21-28.
  35. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  36. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi (4th ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
  37. Tippins, S. (2020). Academic Arrogance: Dismantling a Culture of Harm (Blog Post). https://www.beyondphdcoaching.com/academic-career/academic-arrogance/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  38. Torlak, N. G., & Kuzey, C. (2019). Leadership, job satisfaction and performance links in private education institutes of Pakistan. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(2), 276-295.
  39. Veneziano, L., & Hooper, J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70.
  40. Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1990). Educational measurement and testing. Allyn and Bacon.