SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

DEVELOPING THE POWER EQUITY SCALE FOR COUPLE/FAMILY THERAPY PRACTICES FROM A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE AND DETERMINING ITS PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES

Ayşe Sezen Serpen(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6220-4709
Yunus Kara(SINOP UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7812-5845
Hasan Fehmi Özdemir(ŞIRNAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0705-8032
Veli Duyan(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4316-5756
Pages
284–299
Publication Date
2024-02-01
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)

Depending on these findings, the Power Equity Scale has been determined to be a valid and reliable tool that can be used to collect data in the studies to be conducted in the field.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study carried out to develop the Power Equity Scale and establish its validity and reliability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Scale was applied to the first study group comprised the 404 couple/family therapists.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Depending on these findings, the Power Equity Scale has been determined to be a valid and reliable tool that can be used to collect data in the studies to be conducted in the field.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çift/aile terapisi · Çift/aile terapistleri · Toplumsal cinsiyet

Abstract

This study carried out to develop the Power Equity Scale and establish its validity and reliability. The Scale was applied to the first study group comprised the 404 couple/family therapists. After the scale was applied, an exploratory factor analysis has been conducted and the final single factor scale with 19 items has been found. The structure occuring as a result of the exploratory factor analysis has been confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient acquired from the scale is 0.983. As a result of the test-retest method applied to determine the consistency between the measurements of the scale, the correlation value found between the scores obtained from the two applications is 0.98. Depending on these findings, the Power Equity Scale has been determined to be a valid and reliable tool that can be used to collect data in the studies to be conducted in the field.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Güç Eşitliği Ölçeği'nin geliştirilmesi, geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin sağlanması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Ölçek 404 çift/aile terapistinden oluşan ilk çalışma grubuna uygulanmıştır. Ölçek uygulandıktan sonra açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve 19 maddeden oluşan son tek faktörlü ölçek bulunmuştur. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ortaya çıkan yapı, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı 0,983'tür. Ölçeğin ölçümleri arasındaki tutarlılığın belirlenmesi amacıyla uygulanan test-tekrar test yöntemi sonucunda iki uygulamadan elde edilen puanlar arasında bulunan korelasyon değeri 0,98'dir. Bu bulgulara dayanarak Güç Eşitliği Ölçeğinin alanda yapılacak çalışmalarda veri toplamak amacıyla kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Serpen, A. S., Kara, Y., Özdemir, H. F., Duyan, V. (2024). DEVELOPING THE POWER EQUITY SCALE FOR COUPLE/FAMILY THERAPY PRACTICES FROM A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE AND DETERMINING ITS PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 284–299. https://ajindex.com/articles/1457031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Akgül-Gök, F., & İl, S. (2017). Evli kadın ve erkeklerin toplumsal cinsiyet rolleriyle ilgili algılarının aile işlevlerine yansıması. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(54), 523–533. DOI: 10.17719/jisr.20175434616
  2. Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness of fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-73.
  3. Bentler P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  4. Blom, N., Kraaykamp, G., Verbakel, E. (2017). Couples’ division of employment and household chores and relationship satisfaction: A test of the specialization and equity hypotheses. European Sociological Review, 33(2), 195–208.
  5. Bridges, J. G., Vennum, A. V., McAllister, P., Balderson, B., Taylor, L., & Lyddon, L. (2022) Privilege awareness raising for couple and family therapists: A qualitative thematic analysis part 1. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 34(1-2), 38-66. DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2021.2017614
  6. Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, (4)24, 445-55.
  7. Bull, B., Byno, L., D’Arrigo, J., & Robertson, J. (2022) Parents of non-binary children: Stories of understanding and support. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 34(1-2). 125-152. DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2022.2029331
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  9. Capozzi, F. (2022). A multi-level guide to work with male clients in couple and family therapy from a gender-critical perspective. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 34(1-2), 178-195. DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2022.2065766
  10. Cherry, K. E., & Gerstein, E. D. (2021). Fathering and masculine norms: Implications for the socialization of children’s emotion regulation. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(2), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12411
  11. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis. The USA, Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  12. Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E. (2013). Psikolojik test ve değerlendirme, testler ve ölçmeye giriş (Psychological testing and assessment, an introduction of test and measurement) (Çev. Ed. Ezel Tavşancıl). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  13. Crocker, L., Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. CBS College Publishers Company. USA.
  14. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  15. DeVellis, R. F. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme, kuram ve uygulamalar (Çev. Ed. Tarık Totan). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  16. Dienhart, A. (2001). Engaging men in family therapy: Does the gender ofthe therapist make a difference? Journal of Family Therapy, 23, 21–45.
  17. Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., MacPhee, D. (2000). The power equity guide: Attending to gender in family therapy. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 26(2), 153-170.
  18. Hanson, B. (2001). Systems theory and the spirit of feminism: Grounds for a connection. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 545-556.
  19. Heafner, J. (2018). Feminist Therapists: A Qualitative Exploration of Values and Practices within Context. Doctoral Dissertations University of Connecticut.
  20. Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, (6)1, 1-55.
  21. Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  22. Kahn, J. S. (2010). Feminist therapy for men: Challenging assumptions and moving forward. Women and Therapy, 34(1–2), 59–76.
  23. Kara, Y. (2022). Kadınlara yönelik şiddetin karşılaştırmalı bir analizi: Cadı avlarından Türkiye’deki kadın cinayetlerine. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 15(1), 69-84. DOI: 10.37093/ijsi.937007
  24. Kılıçer, B., Gurcag, S. N., Civan, A., Akyıl, Y., & Prouty, A. M. (2021) Feminist family therapy in Turkey: Experiences of couple and family therapists. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 33(2), 105-130. DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2020.1848053
  25. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NewYork: The Guilford Press.
  26. Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships. Family Process, 52(1), 5–18.
  27. Lan, J., Li, X., Cao, H., Zhou, N., Lin, X., Dengc, L., Fanga, X. (2017). Inequity of sacrifice and marital satisfaction in Chinese young couples. Journal of Family Therapy, 39, 169-192.
  28. Lerman, H. (1994). The practice of ethics within feminist therapy. Women & Therapy, 8, 85-92.
  29. Leslie, L., Clossick, M. (1996). Sexisim in family therapy: Does training in gender make a difference? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 253–269.
  30. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, (103)3, 391-410.
  31. McLnnes-Miller, M., Bermúdez, J. M. (2004). Intersecting gender and social exchange theory in family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 16(2), 25-42. DOI: 10.1300/J086v16n02_02
  32. Nunnaly, J. C., Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (Third Edition). NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  33. Nutt, R. L. (2013). Couples and family counseling in multiple contexts. In E. N. Williams & C. Z. Enns (Eds.), The oxford handbook of feminist multicultural counseling psychology (pp. 358–372). Oxford University Press.
  34. Özdamar, K. (2013). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (9. Baskı). Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi.
  35. Prakash, R., Singh, A. (2013). Who marries whom? Changing mate selection preferences in urban India and emerging implications on social institutions. Population Research and Policy Review, 33(2), 205-227.
  36. Rabin, C. (1996). Equal partners, good friends: Empowering couples through therapy. London: Routledge.
  37. Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  38. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2012). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. Guilford Press.
  39. Russell-Chapin, L. A., Chapin, T. J., Sattler, L. G. (2001). The relationship of conflict resolution styles and certain marital satisfaction factors to marital distress. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9(3), 259-264.
  40. Sümbüloğlu, K., Akdağ, B. (2009). İleri biyoistatistiksel yöntemler (Birinci Baskı). Ankara: Hatipoğlu.
  41. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, (3)6, 49-73.
  42. Szymanski, D. M., Carr, E. R., Moffitt, L. B. (2011). Sexual objectification of women: Clinical implications and training considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 107–126.
  43. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. İstanbul: Ekinoks Yayınları.
  44. Weinhardt, L. S., Xie, H., Wesp, L. M., Murray, J. R., Apchemengich, I., Kioko, D., & Cook-Daniels, L. (2019). The role of family, friend, and significant other support in well-being among transgender and non-binary youth. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 15(4), 311–325.
  45. Wolf, J., Nutt Williams, E., Darby, M., Herald, J., & Schultz, C. (2018). Just for women? Feminist multicultural therapy with male clients. Sex Roles, 78(5–6), 439–450.
  46. Vieira, A. L. (2011). Preparation of the analysis. Interactive LISREL in practice (First Edition). London: Springer.