SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4

Development of the Scale for Determining the Level of Autonomic Personality in Athletes

Sporcularda Otonomik Kişilik Düzeyini Belirleme Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Yunus Emre Büyükbasmacı(KARAMANOĞLU MEHMETBEY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1090-3273
Pages
137–154
Publication Date
2025-12-31
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)

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .865, .858, .630, and .871 for the subdimensions, and .720 overall, indicating acceptable reliability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale for assessing the level of autonomic personality in athletes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Despite its relevance to athletic performance, no specific measurement tool currently exists for athletes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .865, .858, .630, and .871 for the subdimensions, and .720 overall, indicating acceptable reliability.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sporcular · otonomik kişilik · özerklik

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale for assessing the level of autonomic personality in athletes. Autonomic personality refers to an individual’s independence, self-control, and ability to protect personal rights. Despite its relevance to athletic performance, no specific measurement tool currently exists for athletes. Method: This validity and reliability study employed a quantitative survey design. A 17-item question pool was created based on a literature review and evaluated by three experts for content and face validity. Following a pilot test, the main survey was administered to 164 amateur athletes from sports clubs in the Beylikdüzü district of Istanbul, selected through purposive and theoretical sampling. Data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to determine the factor structure and construct validity, while Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal reliability. Results: EFA revealed a four-factor structure explaining 80.70% of the total variance. CFA confirmed this structure with acceptable fit indices (χ²/df = 2.33, RMSEA = .090, CFI = .951, GFI = .927, NFI = .919). The final scale included 10 items across four dimensions: independence, leadership, social belonging, and self-control. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .865, .858, .630, and .871 for the subdimensions, and .720 overall, indicating acceptable reliability. Conclusion: The developed scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing autonomic personality in athletes. It provides a foundation for future research examining the relationships between autonomy, psychological factors, and athletic performance.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sporcularda otonomik kişilik düzeyini değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Otonomik kişilik, bireyin bağımsızlığını, öz denetimini ve kişisel haklarını koruma yeteneğini ifade eder. Atletik performans açısından önemi olmasına rağmen, sporcular için özel bir ölçüm aracı henüz bulunmamaktadır. Yöntem: Bu geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışmasında nicel tarama deseni kullanılmıştır. Literatür taraması temel alınarak 17 maddelik bir soru havuzu oluşturulmuş ve içerik ile yüzey geçerliliği açısından üç uzman tarafından değerlendirilmiştir. Pilot uygulamanın ardından, ana anket İstanbul Beylikdüzü ilçesindeki spor kulüplerinden seçilen 164 amatör sporcuya uygulanmıştır. Veriler SPSS ve AMOS programları ile analiz edilmiştir. Faktör yapısı ve yapı geçerliliğini belirlemek için Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmış, iç tutarlılığı değerlendirmek için Cronbach alfa katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: AFA, toplam varyansın %80,70’ini açıklayan dört faktörlü bir yapı ortaya çıkarmıştır. DFA, bu yapıyı kabul edilebilir uyum indeksleriyle doğrulamıştır (χ²/df = 2,33, RMSEA = .090, CFI = .951, GFI = .927, NFI = .919). Nihai ölçek, bağımsızlık, liderlik, sosyal aidiyet ve öz denetim olmak üzere dört boyutta 10 madde içermektedir. Alt boyutlar için Cronbach alfa katsayıları sırasıyla.865, .858, .630 ve .871; genel ölçek için ise .720 olarak bulunmuş ve kabul edilebilir güvenilirlik göstermiştir. Sonuç: Geliştirilen ölçek, sporcularda otonomik kişiliği değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araçtır. Ayrıca otonomik kişilik, psikolojik faktörler ve atletik performans arasındaki ilişkileri inceleyecek gelecekteki araştırmalar için bir temel sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Büyükbasmacı, Y. E. (2025). Development of the Scale for Determining the Level of Autonomic Personality in Athletes. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 137–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/1471830

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Adams D, ve Miller B K. (2001). Professionalism in nursing behaviors of nurse practitioners. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(4), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2001.25913
  2. Ay E, Karakurt N, ve Kavuran E. (2022). Hemşirelerin Sosyotropik Otonomik Kişilik Özellikleri ile Klinik Karar Vermeleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between sociotropic autonomic personality traits and clinical decision making of nurses]. Ordu Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.38108/ouhcd.893821
  3. Babadağ K. (2001, October 29–November 2). Professionalization and women. International Nursing Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 35–39.
  4. Bagby R M E, Gilchrist J, Rector N A, Dickens S E, Joffe R T, Levitt A, Leviton R D, ve Kennedy S H. (2001). The stability and validity of the sociotropy and autonomy personality dimensions as measured by the revised personal style inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012975524455
  5. Barutçu E, ve Öktem Ş. (2003, October 16–18). Evaluation of personality traits in terms of work-employee compatibility: An application. National Ergonomics Congress, Denizli, Turkey, 41–49.
  6. Beck A T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P J Clayton ve J E Barett (Eds.), Treatment of depression. Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–284). Raven Press.
  7. Beck A T, Epstein N, Harrison R P, ve Emery G. (1983). Development of the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale: A measure of personality factors in psychopathology [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Pennsylvania.
  8. Bei E, Mavroidis I, ve Giossos Y. (2019). Development of a scale for measuring the learner autonomy of distance education students. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(2), 133–144.
  9. Bekker M H J, ve Van Assen M A L M. (2006). A short form of the autonomy scale: Properties of the Autonomy–Connectedness Scale (ACS–30). Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_07
  10. Büyükbasmacı Y E, ve Tazegül Ü. (2016). The comparison of the sociotropic-autonomic personality level between individuals who make sport regularly and those who do not. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 4(37), 611–617.
  11. Büyüköztürk Ş. (2009). Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation (9th ed.). Pegem Publications.
  12. Can H, Aşan Ö, ve Aydın M E. (2015). Organizational behavior. Siyasal Kitabevi.
  13. Carlson G J, Kordas K, ve Murray‐Kolb L E. (2015). Associations between women’s autonomy and child nutritional status: A review of the literature. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 11(4), 452–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12113
  14. Cihangiroğlu N, Uzuntarla Y, ve Özata M. (2015). Analysis of the effect of autonomy and participation in decisions on organizational commitment. Bartın University Journal of I.İ.B.F., 6(12), 39–52.
  15. Dancer D, ve Rammohan A. (2009). Maternal autonomy and child nutrition: Evidence from rural Nepal. Indian Growth and Development Review, 2(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538250910953444
  16. Deci E L, ve Ryan R M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
  17. Deci E L, ve Ryan R M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  18. Dikmetaş Yardan E, ve Dikmetaş H. (2013). Sociotropy-autonomy personality traits and psychological contract perceptions of hospital employees. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(8), 134–145.
  19. Erikmen E, ve Vatan F. (2019). Investigation of nurses' individual and professional autonomy. Journal of Health and Nursing Management, 2(6), 141–152.
  20. Eski, T., & Yıldıran, İ. (2020). Kış Sporları Farkındalık Ölçeği (KSFÖ) geliştirme çalışması. SPORMETRE Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.33689/spormetre.585711
  21. Gündüz D F, ve Akıl A M. (2018). Investigation of sociotropic-otonomic personality traits of working and non-working women. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Review, 2(1), 31–45.
  22. Gürşen Otacıoğlu S. (2008). A relational research on music teachers' sociotropic and autonomic personality traits and depression levels. Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 35–50.
  23. Hithit M, ve Şimşek T. (2021). Investigation of learned resilience levels of high school students according to sociotropic autonomic personality traits. Akdeniz University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(1), 39–55.
  24. Karimi M, ve Besharat M A. (2010). Comparison of hardiness, sociotropy and autonomy in team and individual sports and investigating the impact of these personality characteristics on sport achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 855–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.198
  25. Kaya N, Aştı T, Acaroğlu R, Kaya H, ve Şendir M. (2006). Investigation of sociotropic-otonomic personality characteristics and related factors of nursing students. Cumhuriyet University School of Nursing Journal, 10(3), 1–11.
  26. Kayış A. (2009). Reliability analysis. In Ş Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques (pp. 403–419). Asil Publishing.
  27. Kelleci M, ve Gölbaşı Z. (2004). Investigation of problem-solving skills of nurses working in a university hospital in terms of some variables. Cumhuriyet University School of Nursing Magazine, 8(2), 1–8.
  28. Kolts R L, Robinson A M, ve Tracy J J. (2004). The relationship of sociotropy and autonomy to posttraumatic cognitions and PTSD symptomatology in trauma survivors. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10193
  29. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  30. Lynch R A, Elledge B L, Charles P H, Griffith C C, ve Boatright D T. (2003). A comparison of food safety knowledge among restaurant managers, by source of training and experience, in Oklahoma County. Journal of Environmental Health, 66(2), 9–14.
  31. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
  32. Namoro S, ve Roushdy R. (2009). Intrahousehold resource allocation in Egypt: Women empowerment and investment in children. Middle East Development Journal, 1(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793812009000036
  33. Ni, M. Y., Li, T. K., Yu, N. X., Pang, H., Chan, B. H., Leung, G. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2016). Normative data and psychometric properties of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD RISC) and the abbreviated version (CD RISC2) among the general population in Hong Kong. Quality of Life Research, 25(1), 111–116.
  34. Özdemir L. (2015). The relationship between sociotropic-autonomous personality traits and entrepreneurial tendencies of Kyrgyzstan-Turkey Manas University students. Journal of Management Sciences, 13(25), 115–139.
  35. Polatcı S, ve Sobacı F. (2014). A research to determine the effect of personality traits and emotional intelligence levels on learned resilience levels of students. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(4), 50–71.
  36. Polatcı S, Sobacı F, ve Ünüvar H. (2020). The mediating role of emotional intelligence in the effect of sociotropic and autonomic personality traits on entrepreneurial intention. Trakya University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences E-Dergi, 9(2), 222–241.
  37. Ross-Suits H M. (2010). Maternal autonomy as a protective factor in child nutritional outcome in Tanzania [Master’s thesis]. Georgia State University. https://doi.org/10.57709/1341035
  38. Sato T, ve Gonzalez M A. (2009). Interpersonal patterns in close relationships: The role of sociotropy-autonomy. British Journal of Psychology, 100(2), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X331009
  39. Serinkan C, ve Barutçu E. (2006). A research on career plans and sociotropy-autonomy personality characteristics of Pamukkale University IIBF students. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 13(2), 317–339.
  40. Sheldon K M, ve Deci E. (1993). Self-Determination Scale (SDS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t53985-000
  41. Tabachnick B G, ve Fidell L S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education Limited.
  42. Twomey M. (2015). Why worry about autonomy? Ethics and Social Welfare, 9(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2015.1024154
  43. Ural, A., ve Kılıç, İ. (2011). Scientific research process and data analysis with SPSS. Detay Publishing. Ankara.
  44. Uğurlu N, ve Pako Y. (2016). Investigation of sociotropic-otonomic personality traits of high school seniors. Anatolian Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 19(2).
  45. Vaishnavi, S., Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2007). An abbreviated version of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD RISC), the CD RISC2: Psychometric properties and applications in psychopharmacological trials. Psychiatry Research, 152(2–3), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.01.006
  46. Waddimba, A. C., Baker, B. M., Pogue, J. R., Stewart, J. C., & Green, R. (2022). Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10 and 2 item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the COVID 19 pandemic: An item response theory analysis. Quality of Life Research, 31, 2819–2836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03125-y
  47. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127