SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2025 / Volume: 12 Issue: 4

Support for Gender Equality among Men Scale: Adaptation to Turkish culture

Support for Gender Equality Among Men Scale: Adaptation to Turkish culture

Esma Esen Çiftçi(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3545-0998
Esra Daşcı(KASTAMONU UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0124-9380
Cansu Ayan(ANKARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0773-5486
Zeynep Uludağ(ARDAHAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0447-2158
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-05
🏛️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)

Finally, it was examined whether the scale showed measurement invariance for two different age groups, and it was found that configural metric and scalar invariance were achieved.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Men's participation is an important indicator for achieving gender equality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study is to adapt the “Support for Gender Equality among Men Scale (SGEMS)” developed by Sudkamper et al. (2020) to Turkish.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, it was examined whether the scale showed measurement invariance for two different age groups, and it was found that configural metric and scalar invariance were achieved.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Gender equality · Participation of men in gender equality · Adaptation

Abstract

Men's participation is an important indicator for achieving gender equality. The purpose of this study is to adapt the “Support for Gender Equality among Men Scale (SGEMS)” developed by Sudkamper et al. (2020) to Turkish. The scale examines men's support for gender equality in two sub-dimensions: public space and household. In the study, 419 cis-heterosexual men participated. The confirmatory factor analysis results, which were used for validity evidence, showed that the Turkish version of SGEMS had the same two-factor structure as the original form. To conduct criterion-based validity, the participants answered the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Gender Equality in Turkish Men Scale (GEMS) along with the SGEMS. A significant negative correlation was found between the total score obtained from the SGEMS and the total score obtained from ASI, and a significant positive correlation between the total score obtained from SGEMS and the GEMS. While Cronbach's α internal consistency reliability coefficient for the entire SGEMS was .89, the internal consistency coefficients for the Public and Household subscales were .89 and .78, respectively. Finally, it was examined whether the scale showed measurement invariance for two different age groups, and it was found that configural metric and scalar invariance were achieved. In conclusion, the SGEMS has been introduced to the literature as a valid and reliable scale measuring men's support for gender equality in the Turkish sample.

Özet

Men's participation is an important indicator for achieving gender equality. The purpose of this study is to adapt the “Support for Gender Equality among Men Scale (SGEMS)” developed by Sudkamper et al. (2020) to Turkish. The scale examines men's support for gender equality in two sub-dimensions: public space and household. In the study, 419 cis-heterosexual men participated. The confirmatory factor analysis results, which were used for validity evidence, showed that the Turkish version of SGEMS had the same two-factor structure as the original form. To conduct criterion-based validity, the participants answered the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Gender Equality in Turkish Men Scale (GEMS) along with the SGEMS. A significant negative correlation was found between the total score obtained from the SGEMS and the total score obtained from ASI, and a significant positive correlation between the total score obtained from SGEMS and the GEMS. While Cronbach's α internal consistency reliability coefficient for the entire SGEMS was .89, the internal consistency coefficients for the Public and Household subscales were .89 and .78, respectively. Finally, it was examined whether the scale showed measurement invariance for two different age groups, and it was found that configural metric and scalar invariance were achieved. In conclusion, the SGEMS has been introduced to the literature as a valid and reliable scale measuring men's support for gender equality in the Turkish sample.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çiftçi, E. E., Daşcı, E., Ayan, C., Uludağ, Z. (2025). Support for Gender Equality among Men Scale: Adaptation to Turkish culture. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 12 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1662690

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (93)

  1. Achen, A.C., & Stafford, F.P. (2005). Data quality of housework hours in the panel study of income dynamics: Who really does the dishes. University of Michigan.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Ajzen, I., & Sheikh, S. (2013). Action versus inaction: Anticipated affect in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 155 162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00989.x
  4. Akın, A., Gülşen, M., Aşut, S., & Akca, M. (2012). Yakın İlişkilerde Şiddet Sorumluluğu Ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Intimate Partner Violence Responsibility Scale]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 175-184.
  5. American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
  6. Anderson, V.N. (2009). What's in a label? Judgments of feminist men and feminist women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 206 215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471 6402.2009.01490.x
  7. Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003 066X.55.5.469
  8. Bayar, Ö., Haskan Avcı, Ö., & Koç, M. (2018). Erkek Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rolü Stresi Ölçeği’nin (ETCRSÖ) geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Development of the Male Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS): A validity and reliability study]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 57-76.
  9. Bear, J.B., Treviño, L.J., & Aguinis, H. (2025). A star is born or not: Understanding the star emergence gender gap. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 46, 351 367. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2858
  10. Belingheri, P., Chiarello, F., Fronzetti Colladon, A., & Rovelli, P. (2021) Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. PLoS ONE 16(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474
  11. Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., & Robinson, J.P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.
  12. Boyacıoğlu, İ., Uysal, M.S., & Erdugan, C. (2020). Psikolojik şiddetin ölçümü: Psikolojik İstismar Profilinin ve Kadına Kötü Muamele Envanterinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Measuring psychological violence: Adaptation of the Psychological Abuse Profile and the Inventory of Violence Against Women into Turkish]. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 40(1), 19-55. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2019-0027
  13. Branscombe, N.R., & Deaux, K. (1991). Feminist attitude accessibility and behavioral intentions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15(3), 411-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00417.x
  14. Breinlinger, S., & Kelly, C. (1994). Women's responses to status inequality: A test of social identity theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(1), 1 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00293.x
  15. Brown, M.J., & Gladstone, N. (2012). Development of a short version of the gender role beliefs scale. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 154 158. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120 205.05
  16. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
  17. Burt, M.R. (1980). Sex Role Stereotyping Scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06663-000
  18. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E.K., Akgün, Ö.E., & Karadeniz, Ş. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
  19. Bozok, M. (2018). Ebeveynlik, erkeklik ve çalışma hayatı arasında Türkiye’de babalık [Fatherhood in Turkey: Between parenthood, masculinity, and work life]. AÇEV. https://dspace.ceid.org.tr/handle/1/801
  20. Catell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. Plenum.
  21. Cem-Ersoy, N., Hünler, O.S., & Namer, Y. (2017). Kadına Psikolojik Eziyet Envanteri kısa formu Türkçe uyarlaması [Turkish adaptation of the short form of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory]. Klinik Psikiyatri, 20, 276-286.
  22. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
  23. Cho, E., Allen, T.D., & Meier, L.L. (2025). Is ‘me‐time’selfish?: Daily vitality crossover in dual earner couples. Applied Psychology: Health and Well Being, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.70004
  24. Cihangir, S., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Men as allies against sexism: The positive effects of a suggestion of sexism by male (vs. female) sources. Sage Open, 4, 1 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014 539168
  25. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  26. Craig, L., Perales, F., Vidal, S., & Baxter, J. (2016). Domestic outsourcing, housework time, and subjective time pressure: New insights from longitudinal data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 1224-1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12321
  27. Deutsch, F. (1999). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Harvard University Press.
  28. DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications, Inc.
  29. Dotti Sani, G.M. (2014). Men's employment hours and time on domestic chores in European countries. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1023-1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925 13x14 522245
  30. Drury, B.J., & Kaiser, C.R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. The Journal of Social Issues, 70, 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12083
  31. Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573 598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033 295X.109.3.573
  32. Eliezer, D., & Major, B. (2011). It's not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination on behalf of someone else. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 487 502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211 432894
  33. Estevan‐Reina, L., de Lemus, S., & Megías, J.L. (2017, June). Can men be allies of women in fight against sexism? Feminist identity and benevolent sexism as predictors of sexism confrontation for paternalistic vs. egalitarian reasons [Poster presentation]. EASP: Gender Roles in the Future? Theoretical Foundations and Future Research Directions, Berlin, Germany.
  34. Everitt, B.S. (1975). Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126(3), 237-240. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.126.3.237
  35. Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. (2007). Are perceptions of fairness relationship-specific? The case of noblesse oblige. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 16 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600577266
  36. Frei, J.R., & Shaver, P.R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self‐report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal relationships, 9(2), 121-139.
  37. Gärtner, M. (2007). FOCUS: Fostering caring masculinities. Dissens e.V. and genderWerk.
  38. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491 512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  39. Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
  40. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S.T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., Manganelli, A.M., Pek, J.C.X., Huang, L.-l., Sakalli-Uğurlu, N., Castro, Y.R., D'Avila Pereira, M.L., Willemsen, T.M., Brunner, A., Six-Materna, I., & Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
  41. Gurin, P., & Townsend, A. (1986). Properties of gender identity and their implications for gender consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(2), 139 148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00712.x
  42. Heilman, M.E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organisational Behavior, 32, 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
  43. Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 881 899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506070471
  44. Haas, L. (2003). Parental leave and gender equality: Lessons from the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 20, 89-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-1338.d01-6
  45. 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
  46. Hopkins-Doyle, A., Sutton, R.M., Douglas, K.M., & Calogero, R.M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135
  47. Hu, L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  48. Işık, R., & Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2009). Namusa ve Namus Adına Kadına Uygulanan Şiddete İlişkin Tutumlar Ölçeklerinin öğrenci örneklemiyle geliştirilmesi [Development of the Attitudes Toward Honor and Violence Against Women in the name of honor scales with a student sample]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 12(24), 16-24.
  49. Iyer, A., & Ryan, M.K. (2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 791-814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01625.x
  50. Kato-Wallace, J., Barker, G., Eads, M., & Levtov, R. (2014). Global pathways to men's caregiving: Mixed methods findings from the international men and gender equality survey and the men who care study. Global Public Health, 9, 706 722. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2014.921829
  51. Kaufman, M., & Kimmel, M. (2011). The guy's guide to feminism. Seal Press.
  52. Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Identity and injustice: Exploring women's participation in collective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(1), 41 57. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450050104
  53. Kenny, D.A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D.B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486 507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
  54. Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Methuen.
  55. Kline, R.B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis In Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 171- 207). Routledge.
  56. Kline, R.B. (2019). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesinin ilkeleri ve uygulaması [Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling] (S. Şen, Ed. & Trans.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. (Original work published 2016)
  57. Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K., Jaskiewicz, M., Jurek, P., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). If my masculinity is threatened, I won't support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000016
  58. Larsen, K.S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 19(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292459
  59. Lemaster, P., Strough, J., Stoiko, R., & DiDonato, L. (2015). To have and to do: Masculine facets of gender predict men's and women's attitudes about gender equality among college students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16, 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036429
  60. Liff, S., & Cameron, I. (1997). Changing equality cultures to move beyond “women's problems”. Gender, Work & Organisation, 4, 35 46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468 0432.00022
  61. Manstead, A.S.R., & Parker, D. (1995). Evaluating and Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 69 95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000012
  62. Mills, M.J., Culbertson, S.S., Huffman, A.H., & Connell, A.R. (2012). Assessing gender biases: Development and initial validation of the Gender Role Stereotypes Scale. Gender in Management, 27, 520-540. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211279715
  63. Morgan, B.L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 34(5-6), 359-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547807
  64. Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender? Frontiers In Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320
  65. Moser, C.E., & Branscombe, N.R. (2022). Male allies at work: Gender-Equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects among women. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 372-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211033748
  66. Nanda, G. (2011). Compendium of Gender Scales. FHI 360/C-Change.
  67. Nelson, L.J., & Barry, C.M. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The role of self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 242 262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273074
  68. Noonan, R.K. (1995). Women against the state: Political opportunities and collective action frames in Chile's transition to democracy. Sociological Forum, 10, 81 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098565
  69. Oliffe, J.L., Kelly, M.T., Gonzalez Montaner, G., Seidler, Z.E., Maher, B., & Rice, S.M. (2022). Men building better relationships: A scoping review. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 33(1), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.463
  70. Pulerwitz, J., & Barker, G. (2008). Measuring attitudes toward gender norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psychometric evaluation of the GEM Scale. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06298778
  71. Rasinski, H.M., & Czopp, A.M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 8 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973 53090 3539754
  72. Ryan, M., & Kirby, T. (2018, April 12). Lean in – but how? BPS. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/lean-how
  73. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çakışması [Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Validity and reliability study]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(49), 47-58.
  74. Sakallı, N., & Ulu, S. (2003). Evlilikte kadına yönelik şiddete ilişkin tutumlar: Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik, yaş, eğitim ve gelir düzeyinin etkileri [Attitudes toward domestic violence: The effects of ambivalent sexism, age, education, and income]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 6(11-12), 53-65.
  75. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Kerwer, M., & Klein, A.G. (2014). Evaluation of model fit in nonlinear multilevel structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 181. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00181
  76. Sijtsma K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
  77. Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2(4), 219 220. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329252
  78. Stewart, A.L. (2016). Men's collective action willingness: Testing different theoretical models of protesting gender inequality for women and men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 18, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000068
  79. Streiner, D.L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to Coefficient Alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99 103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
  80. Sudkämper, A., Ryan, M., Kirby, T., & Morgenroth, T. (2020). A comprehensive measure of attitudes and behaviour: Development of the Support for Gender Equality among Men Scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 256 277. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2629
  81. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  82. Tate, C.C., Youssef, C.P., & Bettergarcia, J.N. (2014). Integrating the study of transgender spectrum and cisgender experiences of self-categorization from a personality perspective. Review of General Psychology, 18(4), 302 312. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000019
  83. Türkoğlu, B. (2013). Violence as a way of reconstructing manhood: The role of threatened manhood and masculine ideology on violence against women [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  84. Uçan, G., & Baydur, H. (2016). Türk Erkeklerinde Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability study of the Gender Equality Scale among Turkish men]. The Journal Of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(47), 289-289. https://doi.org/10.9761/jasss3495
  85. Vanbeselaere, N., Boen, F., Van Avermaet, E., & Buelens, H. (2006). The janus face of power in intergroup contexts: A further exploration of the noblesse oblige effect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.6.685-699
  86. Van Laar, C., Van Rossum, A., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Bongiorno, R., & Block, K. (2024). MANdatory-why men need (and are needed for) gender equality progress. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1263313
  87. White, A.M. (2006). Racial and gender attitudes as predictors of feminist activism among self-identified African American feminists. Journal of Black Psychology, 32(4), 455 478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798406292469
  88. Woodzicka, J.A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00199
  89. Yurdugül, H. (2006). The comparison of reliability coefficients in parallel, tau-equivalent, and congeneric measurements. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(1), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000127
  90. Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu, İ., & Çavlin, A. (2015). Kadına yönelik şiddet yaygınlığı [Prevalence of violence against women]. In Türkiye’de kadına yönelik aile içi şiddet araştırması [Domestic violence against women in Türkiye] (pp. 81-122). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü.
  91. Zeyneloğlu, S., & Terzioğlu, F. (2011). Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rolleri Tutum Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve psikometrik özellikleri [Development and psychometric properties of the Gender Roles Attitude Scale]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 409-420.
  92. Zinbarg, R.E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualisations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
  93. Zucker, A.N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but …”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423 435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x