SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 21

SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS SCALE: A STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

ÖZNEL MUTLULUK ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Ahmet AKIN
Seydi Ahmet SATICI
Pages
65–78
Publication Date
2013-10-10
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)

These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigated the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper 1999).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of study consists of 340 university students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Öznel Mutluluk · geçerlik · güvenirlik

Abstract

This study investigated the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper 1999). The sample of study consists of 340 university students. Results of language equivalency showed that the correlations between Turkish and English forms ranged from .72 to .82. Results of exploratory factor analysis showed that the 4 items loaded on one factor. The total variance explained was 46% and factor loadings ranged from .34 to .84. Fit index values of the model were RMSEA=.000, NFI=.99, CFI=1.00, IFI=1.00,RFI=.98, GFI=1.00, AGFI=.99 and SRMR=.015. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the scale was found as .86 and the test-retest reliability coefficient was found as .73. Also the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .55 to .76. These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı Öznel Mutluluk Ölçeği’nin (ÖMÖ; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma 340 üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında, ÖMÖ’nün Türkçe ve orijinal formlarında bulunan maddeler arasındaki korelasyon katsayıları .72 ile .82 arasında bulunmuştur. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde 4 maddenin toplam varyansın %46’sını açıkladığı ve maddelerin tek boyutta toplandığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin faktör yükleri .34 ile .84, madde toplam korelasyonu puanları ise .55 ile .76 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde tek boyutlu modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (RMSEA=.000, NFI=.99, CFI=1.00, IFI=1.00, RFI=.98, GFI=1.00, AGFI=.99 ve SRMR=.015). ÖMÖ’nün iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayısı .86, test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı ise .73 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar ÖMÖ’nün Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKIN, A., SATICI, S. A. (2013). SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS SCALE: A STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 21, 65–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/239887

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK. Ş. (2004). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara:
  2. Pegem A Yayıncılık. BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş., AKGÜN, Ö., KAHVECİ, Ö., & DEMİREL, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 207- 239. COHEN, S. B. (2002). Happiness and the immune system. Positive Health, 82, 9– COSTA, P. T. JR., & MCCRAE, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.
  3. CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row. DIENER, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal of a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
  4. DIENER, E., & SELİGMAN, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81–84.
  5. DIENER, E., SUH, E. M., SMITH, H., & SHAO, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective wellbeing: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 7–32.
  6. EMMONS, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1058-1068.
  7. HEADEY, B., & WEARING, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective wellbeing: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731-739.
  8. HU, L. T., & BNETLER, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  9. JOUBERT, C. E. (1992). Happiness, time consciousness, and subjective life expectancy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 649–650.
  10. JUSTER, F. T., & F. P. STAFFORD (eds.): 1985,
  11. Time, Goods, and Weil-Being (Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI). LE, T. N., LAI, M. H., & WALLEN, J. (2009). Multiculturalism and subjective happiness as mediated by cultural and relational variables, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(3), 303–313.
  12. LEMON, B. W., BENGSTON, V. L., & PETERSON, J. A. (1972). An exploration of the activity theory of aging: Activity types and life satisfaction among in- movers to a retirement community. Journal of Gerontology 27, 511-523.
  13. LYUBOMIRSKY, S., & LEPPER, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 37–155.
  14. LYUBOMIRSKY, S., & TUCKER, K. L. (1998). Implications of ındividual differe