SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 6

The Evaluation of Construct Validity of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in Health and Social Workers' Sample with Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Sağlık ve Sosyal Hizmet Çalışanları Örnekleminde Genel Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği'nin Yapı Geçerliliğinin Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile İncelenmesi

Mehmet KIRLIOĞLU
Şükrü Anıl TOYGAR
Pages
1695–1701
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

T values obtained after CFA for GSES were found to be significant at p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), which was adapted to Turkish by Aypay (2010), was confirmed by performing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in the sample of health and social workers. 58.8% of the participants were women, 50.3% were married, 82.3% were undergraduate graduates, 27.2% were nurses, 26.2% were administrative staff and 20.8% were social workers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:When the fit indexes of CFA were examined, the results were obtained as x 2 (92,50)/sd(31)=2,98; CFI=0,98; GFI=0,96; AGFI=0,92; IFI=0,98; RMSEA=0,071; RMR=0,013; SRMR=0,039; NFI=0,97; NNFI=0,97.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:T values obtained after CFA for GSES were found to be significant at p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), which was adapted to Turkish by Aypay (2010), was confirmed by performing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in the sample of health and social workers. 58.8% of the participants were women, 50.3% were married, 82.3% were undergraduate graduates, 27.2% were nurses, 26.2% were administrative staff and 20.8% were social workers. When the fit indexes of CFA were examined, the results were obtained as x 2 (92,50)/sd(31)=2,98; CFI=0,98; GFI=0,96; AGFI=0,92; IFI=0,98; RMSEA=0,071; RMR=0,013; SRMR=0,039; NFI=0,97; NNFI=0,97. T values obtained after CFA for GSES were found to be significant at p

Özet

Bu çalışmada Aypay (2010) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan Genel Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği’ne (GÖYÖ)ait modelin sağlık ve sosyal hizmet çalışanları örnekleminde Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) iledoğrulanması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmaya katılanların %58,8’i kadın, %50,3’ü evli, %82,3’ülisans mezunu, %27,2’si hemşire, %26,2’si idari personel, %20,8’ı sosyal hizmet çalışanıdır.DFA’ya ait uyum indeksleri incelendiğinde x2(92,50)/sd(31)=2,98; CFI=0,98; GFI=0,96;AGFI=0,92; IFI=0,98; RMSEA=0,071; RMR=0,013; SRMR=0,039; NFI=0,97; NNFI=0,97sonuçları elde edilmiştir. DFA sonucunda GÖYÖ’ye ilişkin elde edilen t değerlerinin p

🔖

Cite This Article

KIRLIOĞLU, M., TOYGAR, Ş. A. (2022). The Evaluation of Construct Validity of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in Health and Social Workers' Sample with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 6, 1695–1701. https://ajindex.com/articles/439943

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Akduman, G. G. & Cantürk, G. (2010). Cinsel istismara uğrayan çocuklara karşı tutum ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (Üniversite öğrencileri örneklemi). Adli Tıp Dergisi, 24(2), 22-29.
  2. Akkuş, Z. (2013). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının özyeterlik inanç düzeylerinin belirlenmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 102-116.
  3. Aypay, A. (2010). Genel Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin (GÖYÖ) Türkçe’ye Uyarlama Çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 113-132.
  4. Aytaç, M. & Öngen, B. (2012). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yeni çevresel paradigma ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliğinin incelenmesi. İstatistikçiler Dergisi: İstatistik ve Aktüerya, 5(1), 14-22.
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freem. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269–290.
  6. Binay, Ş., & Yiğit, R. (2016). Relationship Between Adolescents’ Health Promoting Lifestyle Behaviors and Self-Efficacy. Journal of Pediatric Research, 3, 180-186.
  7. Bingöl, T. Y., Batik, M. V., Hosoglu, R., & Firinci Kodaz, A. (2019). Psychological Resilience and Positivity as Predictors of Self-Efficacy. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(1), 63-69.
  8. Bryman, A. Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysiswith SPSS release 10 for Windows. London: RoutledgePress.
  9. Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A firstcourse in factoranalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Çelik, E., & Koçak, L. (2018). Suppression Effect of Sensation Seeking on the Relationship between General Self-Efficacy and Life Satisfaction among Emerging Adults. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 337-352.
  10. Dean, J. K. (2009). Quantifying social justice advocacy competency: Development of the social justice advocacy scale. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69 (12- A), 4638. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage Publications. Doering, B. K., Barke, A., Friehs, T., & Eisma, M. C. (2018). Assessment of grief-related rumination: validation of the German version of the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS). BMC psychiatry, 18(1), 43-53.
  11. Doğan, N., & Başokçu, T. O. (2010). İstatistik tutum ölçeği için uygulanan faktör analizi ve aşamalı kümeleme analizi sonuçlarının karşılaştır