SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 24

Reliability and Validity Analysis of Cyber Incivility Scale

Siber Nezaketsizlik Ölçeğinin Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik Analizi

İlksun Didem Ülbeği(ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6905-2720
Esengül İplik(ADANA ALPARSLAN TÜRKEŞ BİLİM VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6000-1588
Kemal Can Kılıç(Çukurova Üniversitesi)0000-0003-1248-3321
Pages
375–388
Publication Date
2024-06-30
🏛️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)

The results indicated that the exploratory factor analysis presented a unifactorial structure of the scale.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to implement the Turkish adaptation of the Cyber Incivility scale developed by Lim and Teo (2009).
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the first study, with the data collected from 271 bank employees, explanatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of the scale.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated that the exploratory factor analysis presented a unifactorial structure of the scale.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Siber nezaketsizlik · Güvenilirlik · Geçerlilik

Abstract

The aim of this study is to implement the Turkish adaptation of the Cyber Incivility scale developed by Lim and Teo (2009). In the study, the data were collected from two different samples by using survey method. In the first study, with the data collected from 271 bank employees, explanatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of the scale. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale, item analysis and internal consistency coefficient were analyzed. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to further test the factor structure of the scale. In the second study, by using the data from 313 private sector employees, the discriminant, convergent and criterion validities of the scale were examined. In this context, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted by using the variables, workplace incivility, turnover intention, job satisfaction and happiness. In addition, the reliability of the scales was examined by analyzing the internal consistency coefficients. The results indicated that the exploratory factor analysis presented a unifactorial structure of the scale. The confirmatory factor analysis further indicated that the one-factor of the scale was validated. Confirmatory factor analysis to assess the construct validity of the scale indicated that the instrument demonstrated discriminant, convergent and criterion validity. According to the findings, item analysis and internal consistency coefficients of the scale showed that the instrument was reliable. In the context of these results, the scale in the present study was revealed to be both reliable and valid for future utilization in Turkish studies.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Lim ve Teo (2009) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan Siber Nezaketsizlik ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlamasının yapılmasıdır. Çalışmada veri, iki farklı örneklemden anket yöntemiyle elde edilmiştir. İlk çalışmada, 271 banka çalışanından toplanılan veri ile açıklayıcı faktör analizi kullanılarak ölçeğin faktör yapısı ortaya konulmuştur. Ayrıca ölçeğin iç tutarlılığını tespit etmek üzere madde analizi ve iç tutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Bunların yanında ölçeğin faktör yapısı doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiştir. İkinci çalışmada, özel sektör çalışanlarından toplanılan 313 veri kullanılarak ölçeğin ayrışma, birleşme ve ölçüt bağımlı geçerlilikleri belirlenmiştir. Bu kapsamda işyeri nezaketsizliği, işten ayrılma niyeti, iş tatmini ve mutluluk değişkenleri ile doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Ayrıca ölçeklere ilişkin iç tutarlılık katsayıları hesaplanarak güvenilirlik test edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, açıklayıcı faktör analizinin ölçeğin tek faktörlü yapısını ortaya koyduğunu göstermiştir. Uygulanan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile tek faktörlü yapının doğrulandığı belirlenmiştir. Yapı geçerliliğini ortaya koymak üzere yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ölçeğin ayrışma, birleşme ve ölçüt bağımlı geçerliliklerinin sağlandığını göstermiştir. Bulgulara göre, madde analizi ve iç tutarlılık katsayıları ölçeğin güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir. Elde edilen bu sonuçlar kapsamında ölçeğin Türkçe çalışmalarda kullanmak üzere güvenilir ve geçerli olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ülbeği, İ. D., İplik, E., Kılıç, K. C. (2024). Reliability and Validity Analysis of Cyber Incivility Scale. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 24, 375–388. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1456259

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Aljawarneh, N. M., Alomari, K. A. Kader, Alomari, Z. S. ve Taha, O. (2022). Cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding: Does interactional justice matter?. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 52(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2019-0193
  2. Alonzo, M. ve Aiken, M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems, 36(3), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00190-2
  3. Andersson, L. M. ve Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136
  4. Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D. ve Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 7(5), 586-598. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710827176
  5. Baron, R. A. ve Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:3 3.0.CO;2-Q
  6. Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş. Ezgi Kitabevi.
  7. Bernuzzi, C., O’shea, D., Setti, I. ve Sommovigo, V. (2024). Mind your language! How and when victims of email incivility from colleagues experience work-life conflict and emotional exhaustion. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05689-z
  8. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J. ve Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. John Wiley. http://digitool.hbz-nrw.de:1801/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=3220140
  9. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. ve Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. İçinde S. Seashore (Ed.), Assessing organizational change (ss. 71-138). Wiley.
  10. Caza, B. B. ve Cortina, L. M. (2007). From insult to injury: Explaining the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665108
  11. Cortina, L. M. ve Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014934
  12. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H. ve Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
  13. Febriana, S. K. T. ve Fajrianthi. (2019). Cyber incivility perpetrator: The influenced of dissociative anonimity, invisibility, asychronicity, and dissociative imagination. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175, 012238. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012238
  14. Folger, R. veBaron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. VanderBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51-85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10215-002
  15. Francis, L., Holmvall, C. M. ve O’Brien, L. E. (2015). The influence of workload and civility of treatment on the perpetration of email incivility. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.044
  16. George, D. ve Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Pearson
  17. Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth, E. R. ve Kowalski, R. M. (2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential effects of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032851
  18. Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N. ve Kowalski, R. M. (2012). Cyber incivility @ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0336
  19. Giumetti, G. W., Saunders, L. A., Brunette, J. P., DiFrancesco, F. M. ve Graham, P. G. (2016). Linking cyber incivility with job performance through job satisfaction: The buffering role of positive affect. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 21(4), 230-240. https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204.JN21.4.230.
  20. Griffin, R. W., O'Leary-Kelly, A. ve Collins, J. M. (1998). Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violence and deviant behavior. Stamford, Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
  21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
  22. Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499-519. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.689
  23. Kahai, S. ve Cooper, R. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 263-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045754
  24. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N. ve Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
  25. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J. ve Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925
  26. Lim, V. K. G. ve Teo, T. S. H. (2009). Mind your e-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees’ work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8), 419-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.06.006
  27. Lyubomirsky, S. ve Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041
  28. McCarthy, K., Pillai, R., Cherry, B. ve Steigerwald, M. (2019). From cyber to e-mail incivility: A psychometric assessment and measure validation study. Organization Management Journal, 16(2), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2019.1604198
  29. McMurtry, K. (2014). Managing email overload in the workplace. Performance Improvement, 53(7), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21424
  30. Meydan, C. H. ve Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları. Detay Yayıncılık.
  31. Niven, K., Connolly, C., Stride, C. B. ve Farley, S. (2022). Daily effects of face-to-face and cyber incivility via sadness, anger and fear. Work & Stress, 36(2), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1976882
  32. Nunnally, J. C. ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/mh022/93022756.html
  33. Park, Y., Fritz, C. ve Jex, S. M. (2018). Daily cyber incivility and distress: The moderating roles of resources at work and home. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2535-2557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315576796
  34. Patel, S. E. ve Chrisman, M. (2020). Incivility through the continuum of nursing: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 55(2), 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12425
  35. Peters, A. B. (2014). Faculty to faculty incivility: Experiences of novice nurse faculty in academia. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2013.09.007
  36. Porath, C. L. ve Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181-1197. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919
  37. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
  38. Tassabehji, R. ve Vakola. (2005, Kasım 1). Business email – communications of the ACM. https://cacm.acm.org/practice/business-email/
  39. The Radicati Group, Inc. (2023). Email statistics report, 2023-2027 [Executive summary]. The Radicati Group, Inc. https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Email-Statistics-Report-2023-2027-Executive-Summary.pdf
  40. TÜİK. (2023). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri (BT) kullanım araştırması. TÜİK. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2023-49407
  41. Welbourne, J. L., Miranda, G. ve Gangadharan, A. (2020). Effects of employee personality on the relationships between experienced incivility, emotional exhaustion, and perpetrated incivility. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(4), 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000160
  42. Yoluk, Ö. (2023, Haziran). E-mail pazarlama istatistikleri. https://currentworks.com.tr/e-mail-pazarlama-istatistikleri/.
  43. Yuan, Z., Park, Y. ve Sliter, M. T. (2020). Put you down versus tune you out: Further understanding active and passive e-mail incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(5): 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000215
  44. Zhou, Z. E., Pindek, S. ve Ray, E. J. (2022). Browsing away from rude emails: Effects of daily active and passive email incivility on employee cyberloafing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(5), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000325