SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 17 Issue: 1

Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Green Space Use Satisfaction Scale

Buket Aydemir(ISTANBUL YENI YUZYIL UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9567-5382
Güney Çetinkaya(AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1757-5105
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-07
🏛️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 revealed that the Turkish version of the scale aligns with the original scale structure, demonstrates measurement equivalence across gender groups, and exhibits high internal consistency.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The benefits of green spaces for individuals’ psychological, physical, and social well-being underscore the need to measure satisfaction with green spaces.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study sample comprised 357 students recruited from three public universities in the Mediterranean region of Türkiye via convenience sampling.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that the Turkish version of the scale aligns with the original scale structure, demonstrates measurement equivalence across gender groups, and exhibits high internal consistency.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Green Space Use · Need Satisfaction · Outdoor Recreation

Abstract

The benefits of green spaces for individuals’ psychological, physical, and social well-being underscore the need to measure satisfaction with green spaces. However, the lack of measurement tools in Turkish culture limits research on satisfaction with green space use. Therefore, this study aims to adapt the Green Space Use Satisfaction Scale (GUSS) to Turkish culture and to conduct validity and reliability analyses. The Turkish form of the scale was subjected to linguistic adaptation by the back translation method and shaped by expert opinions. Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance across gender groups were used to assess construct validity. Reliability analyses were conducted using Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and the split-half method. The study sample comprised 357 students recruited from three public universities in the Mediterranean region of Türkiye via convenience sampling. The findings revealed that the Turkish version of the scale aligns with the original scale structure, demonstrates measurement equivalence across gender groups, and exhibits high internal consistency. Additionally, the concurrent validity test demonstrated a significant and positive relationship between the GUSS and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. This study offers a significant cultural perspective to the literature by adapting the GUSS to Turkish culture, thereby facilitating cross-cultural comparisons in the broader literature

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydemir, B., Çetinkaya, G. (2026). Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Green Space Use Satisfaction Scale. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, Volume: 17 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.54141/psbd.1744497

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (88)

  1. Adinolfi, C., Suárez-Cáceres, G. P., & Carinanos, P. (2014). Relation between visitors’ behaviour and characteristics of green spaces in the city of Granada, south-eastern Spain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(3), 534-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.03.007
  2. Agyemang, C., Van Hooijdonk, C., Wendel-Vos, W., Lindeman, E., Stronks, K., & Droomers, M. (2007). The association of neighbourhood psychosocial stressors and self-rated health in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(12), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.052548
  3. Ambrey, C. L. (2016). Urban greenspace, physical activity and wellbeing: The moderating role of perceptions of neighbourhood affability and incivility. Land Use Policy, 57, 638–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.034
  4. Aspinall, P. A., Thompson, C. W., Alves, S., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R., & Vickers, A. (2010). Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space in older people. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(6), 1022-1039. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36024
  5. Atmış, E., Günşen, H.B., (2016). Effect of urbanization on transformation of forestry in Turkey (Period of 1990-2010) Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University 66(1): 16-29. https://doi.org/10.17099/jffiu.6363
  6. Bai, H., Wilhelm Stanis, S. A., Kaczynski, A. T., & Besenyi, G. M. (2013). Perceptions of neighborhood park quality: Associations with physical activity and body mass index. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(1), S39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9448-4
  7. Barakat, C., & Yousufzai, S. (2020). Green space and mental health for vulnerable populations: A conceptual review of the evidence. Journal of Military Veteran and Family Health, 6(S3), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh-2019-0040
  8. Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024
  9. Bell, S. L., Phoenix, C., Lovell, R., &Wheeler, B. W. (2014). Greenspace, health and wellbeing: Making space for individual agency. Health & Place, 30, 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.005
  10. Bratman, G. N., Olvera‐Alvarez, H. A., and Gross, J. J. (2021). The affective benefits of nature exposure. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(8), e12630. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12630
  11. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  13. Browning, M. H., Rigolon, A., & McAnirlin, O. (2022). Where greenspace matters most: A systematic review of urbanicity, greenspace, and physical health. Landscape and Urban Planning, 217, 104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104233
  14. Callaghan, A., McCombe, G., Harrold, A., McMeel, C., Mills, G., Moore-Cherry, N., & Cullen, W. (2021). The impact of green spaces on mental health in urban settings: a scoping review. Journal of Mental Health, 30(2), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020.1755027
  15. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Coles, R. W., & Bussey, S. C. (2000). Urban forest landscapes in the UK—progressing the social agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52, 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00132-8
  18. Conedera, M., Del Biaggio, A., Seeland, K., Moretti, M., & Home, R. (2015). Residents’ preferences and use of urban and peri-urban green spaces in a Swiss mountainous region of the Southern Alps. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.003
  19. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  20. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
  21. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
  22. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
  23. Dunton, G. F., Almanza, E., Jerrett, M., Wolch, J., & Pentz, M. A. (2014). Neighborhood park use by children: use of accelerometry and global positioning systems. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(2), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.009
  24. Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E., & Gencoz, T. (2010). Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99, 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9589-4
  25. Engledow, J. L. (1977). Was consumer satisfaction a pig in a poke? Business Horizons, 20(2), 87-94.
  26. 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
  27. Gavrilidis, A. A., Zakerhaghighi, K., Popa, A. M., Akbarian, S. Z., Onose, D. A., Grădinaru, S. R., & Slave, R. A. (2024). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services provision by small public urban green spaces: Perspectives from different cultural backgrounds. Urban Ecosystems, 27(3), 699-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01480-3
  28. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge.
  29. Gianfredi, V., Buffoli, M., Rebecchi, A., Croci, R., Oradini-Alacreu, A., Stirparo, G.,. & Signorelli, C. (2021). Urban Green Spaces and Public Health Outcomes: a systematic review of literature. European Journal of Public Health, 31, 164-638. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab164.638
  30. Gobster, P.H., & Westphal, L.M. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(2-3), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2
  31. Gozalo, G. R., Morillas, J. M. B., González, D. M., & Moraga, P. A. (2018). Relationships among satisfaction, noise perception, and use of urban green spaces. Science of the Total Environment, 624, 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.148
  32. Guite, H. F., Clark, C., & Ackrill, G. (2006). The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health, 120(12), 1117–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.005
  33. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
  34. Halkos, G., Leonti, A., & Sardianou, E. (2021). Activities, motivations and satisfaction of urban parks visitors: A structural equation modeling analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 70, 502-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.04.005
  35. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
  36. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  37. Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
  38. 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
  39. Jabbar, M., Yusoff, M. M., & Shafie, A. (2022). Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: A systematic review. GeoJournal, 87, 4405-4423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10474-7
  40. Jay, M., & Schraml, U. (2009). Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants–Uses, perception and integrative potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.07.003
  41. Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. (2019). The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452
  42. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management, 38, 338-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0166-6
  43. Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciencess, 29(4), 315-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865
  44. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  45. Ko, M. C., & Lee, J. H. (2025). Measuring the psychological benefits of green space usage: development and validation of the Green Space Use Satisfaction Scale. Social Indicators Research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03536-7
  46. Kondo, M. C., Fluehr, J. M., McKeon, T., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Urban green space and its impact on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030445
  47. Kong, F., & Nakagoshi, N. (2005). Changes of urban green spaces and their driving forces: a case study of Jinan City, China. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 11(2), 97-109.
  48. Lee, J., & Kim, D. H. (2022). Urban forest visit motivation scale: Development and validation. Sustainability, 15(1), 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010408
  49. Lee, Y. C., & Kim, K. H. (2015). Attitudes of citizens towards urban parks and green spaces for urban sustainability: The case of Gyeongsan City, Republic of Korea. Sustainability, 7(7), 8240-8254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078240
  50. Liu, S., Su, C., Zhang, J., Takeda, S., Liu, J., & Yang, R. (2023). Cross-cultural comparison of urban green space through crowdsourced big data: A natural language processing and image recognition approach. Land, 12(4), 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040767
  51. Maas, J., Van Dillen, S. M., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
  52. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 63(12), 967-973. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.079038
  53. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
  54. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  55. Osborne, J. W., & Overbay, A. (2004). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.7275/qf69-7k43
  56. Ostoić, S. K., van den Bosch, C. C. K., Vuletić, D., Stevanov, M., Živojinović, I., Mutabdžija-Bećirović, S.,. & Malovrh, Š. P. (2017). Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: Results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 23, 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.005
  57. Özgüner, H. (2011). Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research, 36(5), 599-620. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.560474
  58. Pala, Ö. N., & Acar, S. (2024). Assessing a greening tool through the lens of green gentrification: Socio-spatial change around the Nation's Gardens of Istanbul. Cities, 150, 105023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105023
  59. Palliwoda, J., Kowarik, I., & von der Lippe, M. (2017). Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: the species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning 157, 394-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003
  60. Pazhouhanfar, M. (2018). Role of space qualities of urban parks on mood change. Psychological Studies, 63, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-017-0434-6
  61. Pensini, P., Horn, E., & Caltabiano, N. (2016). An exploration of the relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature exposure and their mental well-being. Children, Youth and Environments, 26, 125-147. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.26.1.0125
  62. Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
  63. Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimentions of tourist satisfaction with a destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(78)90115-9
  64. Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1145-1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6
  65. Rigolon, A., Browning, M. H., Lee, K., & Shin, S. (2018). Access to urban green space in cities of the Global South: A systematic literature review. Urban Science, 2(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030067
  66. Shanahan, D. F., Bush, R., Gaston, K. J., Lin, B. B., Dean, J., Barber, E., & Fuller, R. A. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 28551. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28551
  67. Son, J., & Kim, B. (2023). Translation performance from the user’s perspective of large language models and neural machine translation systems. Information, 14(10), 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14100574
  68. Son, J., Lee, Y., Kramer, C., & Saha, S. (2025). Residents’ perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green spaces: A comparative study of Korea and Germany. Basic and Applied Ecology, 88, 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2025.08.002
  69. Stoltz, J., & Schaffer, C. (2018). Salutogenic affordances and sustainability: Multiple benefits with edible forest gardens in urban green spaces. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 343957. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02344
  70. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  71. Tamosiunas, A., Grazuleviciene, R., Luksiene, D., Dedele, A., Reklaitiene, R., Baceviciene, M.,. &Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2014). Accessibility and use of urban green spaces, and cardiovascular health: findings from a Kaunas cohort study. Environmental Health, 13, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-20
  72. Terefe, A. E., & Hou, Y. (2024). Determinants influencing the accessibility and use of urban green spaces: A review of empirical evidence. City and Environment Interactions, 24, 100159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2024.100159
  73. Tian, Y., Jim, C. Y., Tao, Y., & Shi, T. (2011). Landscape ecological assessment of green space fragmentation in Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.11.002
  74. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
  75. White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L.,. & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3
  76. World Bank (2020). World Social Report 2020 Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/02/World-Social-Report2020-FullReport.pdf
  77. World Bank (2024). Urban Population Indicator. Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?end=2023&start=1960&view=chart
  78. World Health Organization. (2017). Urban green space interventions and health: A review of impacts and effectiveness. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. Retrieved from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/337690/FULL-REPORT-for-LLP.pdf?ua=1
  79. 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
  80. Yıldızbaş, N. T., Gençay, G., Birben, Ü., Oskay, F., Perkumienė, D., Škėma, M., & Aleinikovas, M. (2025). Benefits Beyond the Physical: How Urban Green Areas Shape Public Health and Environmental Awareness in Istanbul. Forests, 16(5), 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050786
  81. Zhang, F., & Qian, H. (2024). A comprehensive review of the environmental benefits of urban green spaces. Environmental Research, 118837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118837
  82. Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun, Z., & Bao, Z. (2013). Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.001
  83. Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., & Iyer, R. (2014). Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.013
  84. Zhang, Y., Van den Berg, A. E., Van Dijk, T., & Weitkamp, G. (2017). Quality over quantity: Contribution of urban green space to neighborhood satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050535
  85. Gianfredi, V., Buffoli, M., Rebecchi, A., Croci, R., Oradini-Alacreu, A., Stirparo, G.,. & Signorelli, C. (2021). Urban Green Spaces and Public Health Outcomes: a systematic review of literature. European Journal of Public Health, 31, 164-638. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab164.638
  86. Ostoić, S. K., van den Bosch, C. C. K., Vuletić, D., Stevanov, M., Živojinović, I., Mutabdžija-Bećirović, S.,. & Malovrh, Š. P. (2017). Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: Results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 23, 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.005
  87. Tamosiunas, A., Grazuleviciene, R., Luksiene, D., Dedele, A., Reklaitiene, R., Baceviciene, M.,. &Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2014). Accessibility and use of urban green spaces, and cardiovascular health: findings from a Kaunas cohort study. Environmental Health, 13, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-20
  88. White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L.,. & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3