SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Rekreasyon ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Motivation Scale for Mediated Sport Consumption (MSMSC): Evidence from the Turkish Context

Aracılı Ortamda Spor Tüketimi Güdü Ölçeği’nin (MSMSC) Kültürel Uyarlaması ve Psikometrik Doğrulaması: Türkiye Bağlamından Kanıtlar

Gözde Urlu(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7584-4804
Sema Alay Özgül(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8329-0028
Pages
100–116
Publication Date
2026-06-27
🏛️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)

Findings revealed that the seven-factor structure exhibited acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, with factor loadings ranging from .470 to .917.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to adapt the 20-item, seven-factor Motivations for Mediated Sport Consumption Scale (MSMSC), developed by Kim et al. (2025), into Turkish culture and to evaluate its psychometric properties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample consisted of 306 fans (85 females, Mage= 28.60 ± 5.47; 221 males, Mage= 33.19 ± 7.65; total Mtotal_age= 31.90 ± 7.39) aged 18 and over who identify with a football team and consume matches through mediated environments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings revealed that the seven-factor structure exhibited acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, with factor loadings ranging from .470 to .917.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Spor tüketimi · sporda dijitalleşme · seyir sporları

Abstract

This study aims to adapt the 20-item, seven-factor Motivations for Mediated Sport Consumption Scale (MSMSC), developed by Kim et al. (2025), into Turkish culture and to evaluate its psychometric properties. Additionally, the study assesses the criterion-related validity of the scale through its relationship with the Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS). The sample consisted of 306 fans (85 females, Mage= 28.60 ± 5.47; 221 males, Mage= 33.19 ± 7.65; total Mtotal_age= 31.90 ± 7.39) aged 18 and over who identify with a football team and consume matches through mediated environments. The adaptation process involved the back-translation method and expert consensus to ensure content validity. Psychometric evaluation was conducted using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), along with reliability and validity analyses. Findings revealed that the seven-factor structure exhibited acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, with factor loadings ranging from .470 to .917. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged between .698 and .850, while Guttman Split-Half values were found between .691 and .791. Criteria for convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied. Furthermore, criterion-related validity was supported by positive and significant correlations (r= .383–.584) between the MSMSC-T and the SSIS. The systematic cultural adaptation and psychometric validation procedures demonstrate that the MSMSC-T is a valid and reliable instrument for examining mediated sport consumption behaviors in Turkish samples.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Kim ve ark. (2025) tarafından geliştirilen 20 maddeli ve 7 boyutlu Aracılı Ortamda Spor Tüketimi Güdü Ölçeği’ni (AOSTGÖ) Türk kültürüne uyarlamak ve psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Ayrıca, ölçeğin ölçüt geçerliği Spor Taraftarı Özdeşleşme Ölçeği (STÖÖ) ile ilişkisi üzerinden değerlendirmektir. Araştırmanın örneklemi, bir futbol takımı tutan ve takımın maçlarını aracılı ortamlardan izleyen 18 yaş ve üzeri 85 kadın (X̄yaş=28.60±5.47) ve 221 erkek (X̄yaş=33.19±7.65) olmak üzere toplam 306 (X̄yaş=31.90±7.39) taraftardan oluşmuştur. Ölçeğin uyarlama sürecinde çeviri–geri çeviri yöntemi uygulanmış, uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda kapsam geçerliği sağlanmış ve ön uygulama sonrası herhangi bir düzenleme ihtiyacı doğmamıştır. Ölçeğin psikometrik değerlendirmesi kapsamında Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, 7 faktörlü yapının kabul edilebilir uyum iyiliği değerleri sergilediğini ve madde faktör yüklerinin .470 ile .917 arasında değiştiğini göstermiştir. İç tutarlılık katsayıları (Cronbach Alfa) .698 ile .850 arasında, Guttman Split-Half değerleri ise .691 ile .791 arasında bulunmuştur. Yakınsak ve ayrışım geçerliği ölçütleri karşılanmıştır. Ayrıca, AOSTGÖ ile spor taraftarı özdeşleşmesi arasında pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı ilişkiler (r=.383–.584) tespit edilerek ölçüt geçerliği desteklenmiştir. AOSTGÖ-T olarak isimlendirilen ölçek için izlenen kültürel uyarlama aşamaları ve psikometrik aşamalar, 20 maddeli 7 alt boyutlu AOSTGÖ-T’nin Türk kültüründe geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu ve Türk örneklemlerinde aracılı ortamda spor tüketimi davranışlarını inceleyen araştırmalarda kullanılabileceği belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Urlu, G., Özgül, S. A. (2026). Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Motivation Scale for Mediated Sport Consumption (MSMSC): Evidence from the Turkish Context. Uluslararası Rekreasyon ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 100–116. https://doi.org/10.46463/ijrss.1905203

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Alpar, R. (2014). Uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik-güvenirlik (4. bs.). Detay Yayıncılık.
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  3. Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA.
  4. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0
  5. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
  6. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  7. Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419–456. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002223
  8. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  9. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004
  10. Billings, A. C., Butterworth, M. L., & Turman, P. D. (2018). Communication and sport: Surveying the field (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  11. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Allyn & Bacon.
  12. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2021). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (30. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2023). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (34. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
  15. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534
  16. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421
  17. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
  18. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.
  19. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
  20. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.
  21. Deci, E. L., & 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
  22. Dees, W., Walsh, P., McEvoy, C. D., & McKelvey, S. (2026). Sport marketing (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.
  23. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  24. Eastman, S. T., & Land, A. M. (1997). The best of both worlds: Sports fans find good seats at the bar. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 21(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/019372397021002004
  25. Engel, K. S., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
  26. Fairley, S., & Tyler, B. D. (2012). Bringing baseball to the big screen: Building sense of community outside of the ballpark. Journal of Sport Management, 26(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.26.3.258
  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  28. Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4(2), 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1
  29. Giulianotti, R. (2002). Supporters, followers, fans, and flâneurs: A taxonomy of spectator identities in football. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 26(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723502261003
  30. Günay, N., & Tiryaki, Ş. (2003). Spor taraftari özdeşleşme ölçeğinin (STÖÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.17644/sbd.171501
  31. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  32. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  33. Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611758
  34. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1–30.
  35. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  36. Hutchins, B., & Rowe, D. (2012). Sport beyond television: The internet, digital media and the rise of networked media sport. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120415
  37. Jackson, D. N. (1979). Personality research form manual (3rd ed.). Research Psychologists Press.
  38. Jarvie, G. (2006). Sport, culture and society: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688961
  39. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109
  40. Kim, A., Kim, M., Salaga, S., & Zhang, J. J. (2022). Impact of social media on intention to purchase pay-per-view and event attendance: The case of the ultimate fighting championship. International Journal of Sport Communication, 15(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2021-0068
  41. Kim, M. J. (2019). Beyond spectator sports: Scale development and validation for mediated sports consumption (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico). University of New Mexico Digital Repository. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/educ_hess_etds/115/
  42. Kim, M. J., & Mao, L. L. (2021). Sport consumers motivation for live attendance and mediated sports consumption: A qualitative analysis. Sport in Society, 24(4), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1679769
  43. Kim, M. J., Mao, L. L., Seidler, T., & Barnes, J. (2025). The shift in sports viewing: Scale development and validation for mediated sports consumption motivation. European Sport Management Quarterly, 25(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2024.2329157
  44. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  45. Lock, D., & Heere, B. (2017). Identity crisis: A theoretical analysis of team identification research. European Sport Management Quarterly, 17(4), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1306872
  46. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  47. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562
  48. McDonald, M. A., & Milne, G. R. (1999). Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
  49. Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2014). Sport marketing (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.
  50. Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769694
  51. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  52. Orçan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
  53. Pegoraro, A. (2010). Look who's talking—Athletes on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.3.4.501
  54. Pew Research Center. (2019). Teens, social media and technology 2018. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
  55. Qian, T. Y. (2022). Watching sports on Twitch? A study of factors influencing continuance intentions to watch Thursday night football co-streaming. Sport Management Review, 25(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2021.1930700
  56. Qian, T. Y., Wang, J. J., Zhang, J. J., & Lu, L. Z. (2020). It is in the game: Dimensions of esports online spectator motivation and development of a scale. European Sport Management Quarterly, 20(4), 458–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1630464
  57. Rowe, D. (2020). The media sports cultural complex (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
  58. Sanderson, J. (2011). It's a whole new ballgame: How social media is changing sports. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  59. Sezer Hocaoğlu, G., Alay Özgül, S., & Karlı, Ü. (2023). Adaptation of sports involvement scale to Turkish culture: A validity and reliability study in football spectators. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 14(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.54141/psbd.1346228
  60. Shank, M. D., & Lyberger, M. R. (2015). Sports marketing: A strategic perspective (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315794082
  61. Sözeri, B., & Koçak, M. S. (2003). Türkiye'deki Süper Lig futbol kulüplerinin bir pazarlama aracı olarak internet kullanımları. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(3), 114–132. https://izlik.org/JA49TB85AC
  62. Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. A., & Milne, G. R. (1997). Creating and fostering fan identification in sport. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/10616934970060
  63. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  64. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  65. Thompson, B. (2008). Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  66. Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.
  67. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Sage Publications.
  68. Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.9.2.153
  69. Wann, D. L. (2006). The causes and consequences of sport team identification. In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 331–352). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  70. Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1–17.
  71. Weed, M. (2008). Exploring the sport spectator experience: Virtual football spectatorship in the pub. Soccer & Society, 9(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970701811057
  72. 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
  73. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner's guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079