SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Validity and Reliability of the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale

Müge Uluman(Marmara University, Department of Educational Sciences)0000-0003-4155-3114
Derya Eryiğit(Marmara University, Department of Educational Sciences)0000-0002-3708-7176
Emine Burcu Tunç(Marmara University, Department of Educational Sciences)0000-0002-8225-9299
Simel Parlak(Okan University, Department of Educational Sciences)0000-0002-8651-2693
Pages
230–241
Publication Date
2021-07-25
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)

This analysis indicates that the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale is a valid and reliable psychometric tool.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study developed a measure of solidarity levels during pandemics, the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale (SPS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:This was achieved using a study group of 842 individuals aged between 18 and 65 from different segments of society who had experienced the COVID-19 pandemic and differed in age, gender, and socioeconomic status.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This analysis indicates that the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale is a valid and reliable psychometric tool.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Solidarity · pandemics · solidarity in pandemics

Abstract

This study developed a measure of solidarity levels during pandemics, the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale (SPS). This was achieved using a study group of 842 individuals aged between 18 and 65 from different segments of society who had experienced the COVID-19 pandemic and differed in age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Exploratory factor analysis was used to establish the construct validity of the scale, producing a 15-item scale with a one-dimensional structure that explained 34.36% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis using a different study group revealed that all items have significant t-values, and the model established according to model fit indexes has meaningful and acceptable fit values. The internal consistency of the scale results was calculated using the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, and a reliability of .85 in terms of internal consistency was obtained. Test-retest reliability results as another indicator of reliability were found to be .85. Scores on the Altruism Scale were compared with those on the SPS to evaluate the scale’s criterion validity, and a significant relationship was found between the two scale scores. This analysis indicates that the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale is a valid and reliable psychometric tool.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uluman, M., Eryiğit, D., Tunç, E. B., Parlak, S. (2021). Validity and Reliability of the Solidarity in Pandemics Scale. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 230–241. https://ajindex.com/articles/1497412

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Akın, H. (2018). Felaket geliyorum demişti: Ortaçağda yaşanan büyük veba salgını ve toplumsal yaşamdaki sonuçları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Kebikeç: İnsan Bilimleri İçin Kaynak Araştırmaları Dergisi, 46, 247-296.
  2. Altın, Z. (2020). Covid-19 pandemisinde yaşlılar. Tepecik Eğit. ve Araşt. Hast. Dergisi, 30, 49-57. http://dx.doi:10.5222/terh.2020.93723
  3. Ayalon, L., Chasteen, A., Diehl, M., Levy, B., Neupert, S. D., Rothermund, K.,. & Wahl, H. W. (2020). Aging in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Avoiding ageism and fostering intergenerational solidarity. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 20, 1-4. http://dx.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbaa051
  4. Bayertz, K. (Ed.). (1999). Solidarity (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.
  5. Blasi, L., Bordonaro, R., Borsellino, N., Butera, A., Caruso, M., Cordio, S.,. & Spada, M. (2020). Reactions and countermeasures of medical oncologists towards the incoming COVID-19 pandemic: a WhatsApp messenger-based report from the Italian College of Chief Medical Oncologists. Ecancermedicalscience, 14. http://dx.doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2020.1046
  6. Blondé, J., & Girandola, F. (2019). When defensive reactions contribute to the acceptance of fear-arousing communications. Current Psychology, 38(1), 75-83. http://dx.doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9590-z
  7. Bostan, S., Erdem, R., Öztürk, Y. E., Kılıç, T., & Yılmaz, A. (2020). The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Turkish Society. Electronic Journal of General Medicine, 17(6), 1-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/7944.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
  9. Chakraborty, I., & Maity, P. (2020). COVID-19 outbreak: Migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 1-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138882.
  10. Cheng, K. K., Lam, T. H., & Leung, C. C. (2020). Wearing face masks in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic: Altruism and solidarity. The Lancet. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)30918-1.
  11. Civicus (2020). Solidarity in the time of COVID-19: Civil society responses to the pandemic. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/solidarity-in-the-time-of-covid-19_en.pdf
  12. CNNTURK, (2020, January). “Hayırsever vatandaş, İzmit’te bakkalda veresiye defterini kapattı”. (24.01.2020). https://www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/hayirsever-vatandas-izmitte-bakkalda-veresiye-defterini-kapatti
  13. Cohn, S. K. (2012). Pandemics: Waves of disease, waves of hate from the Plague of Athens to AIDS. Historical Research, 85(230), 535-555.
  14. Comfrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First course in factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  15. Cortina J., M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An Examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
  16. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  17. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Vol. 2). Pegem Akademi.
  18. DeVellis, F. R. (2014). Ölçek geliştirmede kuram ve uygulamalar (T. Totan, Cev.). Nobel Yayınları.
  19. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2008). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European review of social psychology, 18(1), 296-330. http://dx.doi: 10.1080/10463280701726132
  20. Durkheim, E. (2014). The division of labor in society. Simon and Schuster.
  21. Erikan, İ. (2020, March). Koronavirüsle mücadele eden sağlık çalışanlarına alkışlı destek sürüyor. https://tr.sputniknews.com/koronavirus-salgini/202003201041650705-koronavirusle-mucadele-eden-saglik-calisanlarinaalkisli-destek-suruyor/
  22. Erkuş, A. (2017). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-II: Ölçme araçlarının psikometrik nitelikleri ve ölçme kuramları. Pegem.
  23. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  24. Field, A. (2005). Exploring data. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2, 63-106.
  25. Filiz, B. & Demirhan, G. (2015). Bireysel ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Ölçeği’nin (BSS-Ö) Türk diline uyarlanma çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 26(2), 51–64.
  26. Galang, J. R. F., Gopez, J. M. W., Capulong, H. G. M., & Gozum, I. E. A. (2021). Solidarity as a companion virtue in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England).
  27. Genschel, P., & Jachtenfuchs, M. (2021). Postfunctionalism reversed: solidarity and rebordering during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(3), 350-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1881588
  28. Harper, C. A., Satchell, L. P., Fido, D., & Latzman, R. D. (2020). Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00281-5
  29. Ho, A., & Dascalu, I. (2020). Global Disparity and Solidarity in a Pandemic. Hastings Center Report, 50(3), 65-67. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hast.1138
  30. Hurriyet (2021, January). Paket paket destek. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/kelebek/hurriyet-cumartesi/paket-paket-destek-41722156
  31. Jakovljevic, M., Bjedov, S., Jaksic, N., & Jakovljevic, I. (2020). COVID-19 pandemia and public and global mental health from the perspective of global health security. Psychiatria Danubina, 32(1), 6-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2020.6
  32. Jordà, Ò., Singh, S. R., & Taylor, A. M. (2020). Longer-run economic consequences of pandemics (No. w26934). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  33. Karataş, Z. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemisinin toplumsal etkileri, değişim ve güçlenme. Türkiye Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 3-17.
  34. Kimura, F., Thangavelu, S. M., Narjoko, D., & Findlay, C. (2020). Pandemic (COVID‐19) policy, regional cooperation and the emerging global production network. Asian Economic Journal, 34(1), 3-27. https://dx.doi: 10.1111/asej.12198
  35. Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
  36. Kokudo, N., & Sugiyama, H. (2020). Call for international cooperation and collaboration to effectively tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Health & Medicine, 2(2), 60-62.
  37. Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(5), 469-479. https://dx.doi: 10.35772/ghm.2020.01019
  38. Maryani, E. (2018). Developing social solidarity through digital media. Jurnal Komunikasi Ikatan Sarjana Komunikasi Indonesia, 3(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.25008/jkiski.v3i1.144
  39. Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B., & Prévost, C. (2015). The ecology of human fear: survival optimization and the nervous system. Frontiers in Neuro-science, 9, 55. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00055
  40. Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research (Vol. 1). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  41. Özarslan, Z. (2012). 23 Ekim 2011 Van depremi sonrasında yaşanan toplumsal değişimde yeni medyanın rolü. New Communication Technologies, 205-219.
  42. Özgüven, İ., E. (2011). Psikolojik testler. Pegem Yayınları.
  43. Öztürk, S.& Hazer, O. (2016). Youth perspectives on intergenerational solidarity in families. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 10(4), 222-232. https://dx.doi:10.21763/tjfmpc.271095
  44. Rimé, B., Páez, D., Basabe, N., & Martínez, F. (2010). Social sharing of emotion, post‐traumatic growth, and emotional climate: Follow‐up of Spanish citizen's response to the collective trauma of March 11th terrorist attacks in Madrid. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 1029-1045.
  45. Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and individual differences, 2(4), 293-302.
  46. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge.
  47. Stiff, C. (2020). The game theory of panic-buying–and how to reduce it. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-game-theory-of-panic-buying-and-how-to-reduce-it-134107 adresinden 23.09.2020.
  48. Streiner D., (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99-103. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
  49. Şencan, H. (2005). Güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. Seçkin Yayınevi.
  50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics: Pearson new international edition. Pearson.
  51. Taylor, C. S., (2013). Validity and validation. Oxford University Press.
  52. Tekeş, B., & Hasta, D. (2015). Özgecilik ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi, 3(6), 55-75.
  53. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. American Psychological Association.
  54. Ümmet, D., Ekşi, H. ve Otrar, M. (2013). Özgecilik (Altruism) Ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(26), 301-321.
  55. Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M.,. & Drury, J. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
  56. Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-25. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F1082-989X.3.2.231
  57. Verikios, G., Sullivan, M., Stojanovski, P., Giesecke, J. A., & Woo, G. (2011). The global economic effects of pandemic influenza. Centre of Policy Studies (CoPS).
  58. Veneziano L. & Hooper J. (1997). “A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires”. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70.
  59. Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (Eds.). (2010). Measurement in nursing and health research. Springer.
  60. WHO (2021, April). Cooperation among countries. https://www.who.int/country-cooperation/what-who-does/inter-country/en/.
  61. WHO (2021, April). Healthy Cities/Communities Response to COVID-19: social solidarity in pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/searo/timor-leste/covi-19-guide-for-healthy-cities.pdf?sfvrsn=9d600ec4_2.
  62. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615. https://dx.doi: 10.1177/109019810002700506
  63. Zou, C., Wang, X., Xie, Z., & Li, D. (2020). Public reactions towards the COVID-19 Pandemic on Twitter in the United Kingdom and the United States. MedRx. 1-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.25.20162024
  64. Ayalon, L., Chasteen, A., Diehl, M., Levy, B., Neupert, S. D., Rothermund, K.,. & Wahl, H. W. (2020). Aging in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Avoiding ageism and fostering intergenerational solidarity. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 20, 1-4. http://dx.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbaa051
  65. Blasi, L., Bordonaro, R., Borsellino, N., Butera, A., Caruso, M., Cordio, S.,. & Spada, M. (2020). Reactions and countermeasures of medical oncologists towards the incoming COVID-19 pandemic: a WhatsApp messenger-based report from the Italian College of Chief Medical Oncologists. Ecancermedicalscience, 14. http://dx.doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2020.1046
  66. Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M.,. & Drury, J. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
  67. WHO (2021, April). Healthy Cities/Communities Response to COVID-19: social solidarity in pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/searo/timor-leste/covi-19-guide-for-healthy-cities.pdf?sfvrsn=9d600ec4_2.