SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Adaptation of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Bireysel ve Örgütsel Esneklik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Mustafa Altıntaş(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, SİYASET BİLİMİ VE KAMU YÖNETİMİ BÖLÜMÜ, YÖNETİM BİLİMLERİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-9846-5513
Pages
665–678
Publication Date
2025-10-06
🏛️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 findings of the study demonstrated that the Turkish version of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale is consistent and reliable, thereby contributing to the national literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study involves the adaptation of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale into Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the first stage, the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale developed by Urbini et al. (2024) was translated into Turkish, and linguistic validity was ensured.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of the study demonstrated that the Turkish version of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale is consistent and reliable, thereby contributing to the national literature.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bireysel Esneklik · Örgütsel Esneklik · Geçerlik

Abstract

This study involves the adaptation of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale into Turkish. The research was conducted in three stages. In the first stage, the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale developed by Urbini et al. (2024) was translated into Turkish, and linguistic validity was ensured. Subsequently, data were collected via an online survey from 474 administrative staff working at a public university located in Central Anatolia for the purpose of conducting validity and reliability analyses of the scale. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS software through exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analysis. As part of the analysis, a test-retest reliability analysis was performed, and convergent validity was examined by testing the relationship of the scale with the “Work Engagement Scale” and the “Shortened Proactive Personality Scale.” As a result of the analyses, the Turkish adaptation of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale, consisting of two dimensions and eight items, was completed, and the initial psychometric properties of the scale for the Turkish sample were established, along with its validity and reliability. The findings of the study demonstrated that the Turkish version of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale is consistent and reliable, thereby contributing to the national literature.

Özet

Bu araştırma, Bireysel ve Örgütsel Esneklik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanmasını içermektedir. Araştırma toplamda üç aşamada gerçekleştirilmiş olup ilk aşamada Urbini vd. (2024) tarafından geliştirilen Bireysel ve Örgütsel Esneklik Ölçeği Türkçeye uyarlanarak dilsel geçerlik sağlanmıştır. Ardından ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri için İç Anadolu’da bir devlet üniversitesinde görev yapan 474 idari personelden çevrimiçi anket yoluyla veriler toplanmıştır. Elde edilen araştırma verilerine SPSS ve AMOS programları kullanılarak; açıklayıcı faktör analizi, güvenirlik analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve korelasyon analizi uygulanmıştır. Analiz kapsamında test-tekrar test analizi yapılmış olup akabinde “İşle Bütünleşme Ölçeği” ve “Kısaltılmış Proaktif Kişilik Ölçeği” ile ilişki testi yapılarak benzer ölçek geçerliğinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda iki boyut ve 8 ifadeden oluşan Bireysel ve Örgütsel Esneklik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlama işlemi yapılmış ve ilgili ölçeğin Türk örneklemindeki ilk psikometrik özellikleri oluşturularak, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Araştırma sürecinde Türkçe Bireysel ve Örgütsel Esneklik Ölçeğinin tutarlı ve güvenilir olduğu gözlenerek ulusal literatüre katkı sağlanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Altıntaş, M. (2025). Adaptation of the Individual and Organizational Ductility Scale into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 665–678. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1670019

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Abubakar, A. M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M. A., & Elçi, A. (2019). Knowledge management, decision-making style and organizational performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), 104–114.
  2. Akın, A., Abacı, R., Kaya, M., & Arıcı, N. (2011, June). Kısaltılmış Proaktif Kişilik Ölçeği’nin (KPÖ) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. ICES11 International Conference on Educational Sciences, June, 22, 25.
  3. Albright, J. J. ve Park, H. M. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CALIS.
  4. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations. Business Horizons, 42, 63-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
  5. Beribisky, N., & Hancock, G. R. (2024). Comparing RMSEA-based indices for assessing measurement invariance in confirmatory factor models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(4), 716-735. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231202949
  6. Bhamra, R. S., Burnard, K., & Dani, S. S. (2016). Resilience: The concept, a literature review and future directions. In R. Bhamra (Ed.), Organizational resilience: Concepts, integration and practice (pp. 3-29). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
  7. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  8. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  9. Connor, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. England: Wiley.
  10. Coşkun, R., Altunışık, R., & Yıldırım, E. (2019). Research methods in social sciences SPSS applied (10th ed.). Sakarya: Sakarya Publishing. https://www.seckin.com.tr/kitap/sosyal-bilimlerde-arastirma-yontemleri-spss-uygulamalari-recai-coskun-remzi-altunisik-engin-yildirim-s-p-891422462
  11. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., & Foropon, C. (2019). Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 5(3), 1-19.
  12. Francart, C. (2010). What does resilience really mean? Revue Défense Nationale, 1-11.
  13. Gürbüz, S. (2021). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi temel ilkeler ve uygulamalı analizler. Ankara. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  14. Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.
  15. Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H., & Ludwig, D. (2002). In quest of a theory of adaptive change. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 3-22). Washington, DC: Island Press.
  16. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
  17. Laser, J. (2020). The best equilibrium in organizational flexibility-stability continuums. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2019-1875
  18. Lyu, C., Zhang, F., Ji, J., Teo, T. S. H., Wang, T., & Liu, Z. (2022). Competitive intensity and new product development outcomes: The roles of knowledge integration and organizational unlearning. Journal of Business Research, 139, 121–133.
  19. Öngöre, Ö. (2013). İşle bütünleşme ölçeği Türkçe formunun güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik çalışması. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 50-50.
  20. Özcan, K. ve Balyer, A. (2013). Liderlik oryantasyon ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 136-150.
  21. Raudsepp, E. (1990). Are you flexible enough to succeed? Manage, 42, 6.
  22. Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.
  23. Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 135-159.
  24. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416-427.
  25. Sencer, M. ve Sencer, Y. (1978). Toplumsal araştırmalarda yöntembilim. Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayını.
  26. Shukla, S. K., & Sharma, M. K. (2019). Managerial paradox toward flexibility: Emergent views using thematic analysis of literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(4), 349-370.
  27. Shukor, A. A. A., Newaz, M. S., Rahman, M. K., & Taha, A. Z. (2021). Supply chain integration and its impact on supply chain agility and organizational flexibility in manufacturing firms. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16(8), 1721-1744. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0418
  28. Şencan H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik. Ankara. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  29. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinox
  30. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
  31. Thao, N. T. P., Tan, N. V., & Tuyet, M. T. A. (2022). KMO and Bartlett's test for components of workers' working motivation and loyalty at enterprises in Dong Nai Province of Vietnam. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, Applied Sciences & Technologies, 13(10), 13A10M,1-13. https://tuengr.com/V13/13A10M.pdf
  32. Urbini, F., Caracuzzo, E., Chirumbolo, A., & Callea, A. (2024). Individual and organizational ductility: Conceptualization, development, and validation of a new scale. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060511
  33. Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3418-3442.
  34. Wildavsky, A. (2017). Searching for safety: Social theory and social policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
  35. Yeniaras, V., Di Benedetto, A., & Dayan, M. (2021). Effects of relational ties paradox on financial and non-financial consequences of servitization: Roles of organizational flexibility and improvisation. Industrial Marketing Management, 99, 54–68.