Journals / Türk Spor ve Egzersiz Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

Leisure Boredom Scale: the Factor Structure and the Demographic Differences

Serbest Zamanda Sıkılma Algısı Ölçeği: Faktör Yapısının Belirlenmesi ve Demografik Farklılıklar

Pages
28–35
Publication Date
2014-10-11
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)

The scale consists of 10 items; the item factor loadings for the overall scale range between 0.38 and 0.83; and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the subscales was determined 0.72 for boredom and 0.77 for satisfaction in the final form of the scale.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Leisure Boredom Scale (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) for adults in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In total 312 employees from public and private sectors (167 female, 145 male) residing in Ankara participated in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The scale consists of 10 items; the item factor loadings for the overall scale range between 0.38 and 0.83; and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the subscales was determined 0.72 for boredom and 0.77 for satisfaction in the final form of the scale.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Leisure boredom · reliability · validity.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Leisure Boredom Scale (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) for adults in Turkey. The second purpose was to investigate the differences based on demographic variables (gender, marital status, working sector) regarding leisure boredom. In total 312 employees from public and private sectors (167 female, 145 male) residing in Ankara participated in this study. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to test the structural validity of the scale. EFA demonstrated that this scale yielded two subscales in the Turkish version. The first factor was named "boredom" and the second factor was named "satisfaction" by the participating researchers after reviewing the related literature and examining the factor structure of the scale. The scale consists of 10 items; the item factor loadings for the overall scale range between 0.38 and 0.83; and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the subscales was determined 0.72 for boredom and 0.77 for satisfaction in the final form of the scale. According to t-test results regarding the demographic variables, there was statistically significant difference in gender only in the ‚satisfaction‛ subscale, and between women and men participants, with men participants having higher mean scores (p<.01). There was no significant difference in terms of marital status in total LBS and the subscales. Concerning the working sectors of the participants, the analysis showed significant differences in total LBS and the ‚boredom‛ subscale between public and private sector’s participants, with public sector’s participants having higher mean scores than the latter (p<.01). In conclusion, the results of the research demonstrated that the Turkish adaptation of ‚The Leisure Boredom Scale‛ can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool to examine and evaluate the leisure boredom levels of Turkish adults. Another conclusion of the study worth noting is that there were significant differences between the different components of gender and working sector variables in terms of leisure boredom levels

Özet

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Leisure Boredom Scale (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) for adults in Turkey. The second purpose was to investigate the differences based on demographic variables (gender, marital status, working sector) regarding leisure boredom. In total 312 employees from public and private sectors (167 female, 145 male) residing in Ankara participated in this study. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to test the structural validity of the scale. EFA demonstrated that this scale yielded two subscales in the Turkish version. The first factor was named "boredom" and the second factor was named "satisfaction" by the participating researchers after reviewing the related literature and examining the factor structure of the scale. The scale consists of 10 items; the item factor loadings for the overall scale range between 0.38 and 0.83; and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the subscales was determined 0.72 for boredom and 0.77 for satisfaction in the final form of the scale. According to t-test results regarding the demographic variables, there was statistically significant difference in gender only in the “satisfaction” subscale, and between women and men participants, with men participants having higher mean scores (p<.01). There was no significant difference in terms of marital status in total LBS and the subscales. Concerning the working sectors of the participants, the analysis showed significant differences in total LBS and the “boredom” subscale between public and private sector's participants, with public sector's participants having higher mean scores than the latter (p<.01). In conclusion, the results of the research demonstrated that the Turkish adaptation of “The Leisure Boredom Scale” can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool to examine and evaluate the leisure boredom levels of Turkish adults. Another conclusion of the study worth noting is that there were significant differences between the different components of gender and working sector variables in terms of leisure boredom levels.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARA, F., GURBUZ, B., ONCU, E. (2014). Leisure Boredom Scale: the Factor Structure and the Demographic Differences. Türk Spor ve Egzersiz Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 28–35. https://ajindex.com/articles/206196

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Acee TW, Kim H, Kim HJ, Kim J, Hsiang-Ning RC, Kim M. Academic boredom in under- and over challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2010; 35(1): 17-27. Barbalet J. Boredom and Social Meaning. British Journal of Sociology, 1999; 50(4): 629-44.
  2. Barnett LA, Klitzing SW. Boredom in free time: Relationships with personality, affect, and motivation for different gender, racial and ethnic student groups. Leisure Sciences, 2006; 28(3): 223-244. - Belton T, Priyadharshini E. Boredom and schooling: A cross- disciplinary exploration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 2007;37(4): 579-595.
  3. Brown TA, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. 2006. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (9.Basım). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. 2008
  4. Caldwell, LL, Darling N, Payne LL, Dowdy B. “Why are you bored?” An examination of psychological and social control causes of boredom among adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 1999;31(2), 103–121.
  5. Caldwell LL, Baldwin CK, Walls T, Smith EA. Preliminary effects of a leisure education program to promote healthy use of free time among middle school adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 2004;36: 310–335. Calhoun C. Living with Boredom. SOPHIA, 2011:50:269–279. Conrad P. It's boring: Notes on the meanings of boredom in everyday life. Qualitative Sociology, 1997;20(4): 465-475. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951;16, 297-334. Culp R. Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: A case study examining constraints and effective programming. Journal of Leisure Research, 1998;30(3): 356–379.
  6. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 2010 Ekiz D. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık, 2009. Fisher C. Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 1993;46, 395-417.
  7. Graef R, Csikszentmihalyi M, Gianinno SM. Measuring intrinsic motivation in everyday life. Leisure Studies, 1983; 2, 155–168. Henderson K. The meaning of leisure for women: An integrative review of the research. Journal of Leisure Research, 1990; 22(3):228–243.
  8. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999;6: 1-55.
  9. Iso-Ahola SE, Crowley ED. Adolescent substance abuse and leisure boredom. Journal of Leisure Research, 1991; 23(