SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2012 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 164

Self-handicapping Scale: A study of validity and reliability

Kendini Sabotaj ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Ahmet AKIN
Pages
176–187
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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 Selfhandicapping Scale (SHS; Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of study consists of 585 university students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study investigated the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Selfhandicapping Scale (SHS; Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982). The sample of study consists of 585 university students. Results of language equivalency showed that the correlations between Turkish and English forms ranged from .69 to .98. Results of exploratory factor analysis showed that the 25 items were loaded on one factor. The total variance explained was 32% and factor loadings ranged between .34 to .69. Fit index values of the model were RMSEA=.037, NFI=.98, CFI=.99, IFI=.99, RFI=.97, GFI=.97, AGFI=.94. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the scale was found as .90 and the test-retest reliability coefficient was found as .94. Also, the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .30 to .63. These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Kendini Sabotaj Ölçeği’nin (KSÖ; Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma 585 üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında, KSÖ’nün Türkçe ve orijinal formlarında bulunan maddeler arasındaki korelasyon katsayıları .69 ile .98 arasında bulunmuştur. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde 25 maddenin toplam varyansın %32’sini açıkladığı ve maddelerin tek boyutta toplandığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin faktör yükleri .34 ile .69, madde toplam korelasyon katsayıları ise .30 ile .63 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde tek boyutlu modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (RMSEA=.037, NFI=.98, CFI=.99, IFI=.99, RFI=.97, GFI=.97, AGFI=.94). KSÖ’nün iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayısı .90, test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı ise .94 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar KSÖ’nün Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKIN, A. (2022). Self-handicapping Scale: A study of validity and reliability. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 164, 176–187. https://ajindex.com/articles/497658

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Akın, A. (2006). 2X2 Başarı Yönelimleri Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 1−13. Akın, A. (2008). Self-compassion and achievement goals: A structural equation modeling approach. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 31, 1−15. Akın, A. (2010). Achievement goals and academic locus of control: Structural equation modeling. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 1−18. Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey, & G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution basic issues and applications (s. 169−202). New York: Academic Press.
  2. Baumeister, R. F., Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of success. Confidence booster or performance pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1447–1457.
  3. Baumgardner, A. H. (1991). Claiming depressive symptoms as a self-handicap: A protective selfpresentation strategy. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 97−113. Baumgardner, A. H., Lake, E. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1985). Claiming mood as a self-handicap: The influence of spoiled and unspoiled public identities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 349–357.
  4. Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405-417.
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (8. Baskı). Ankara:
  6. Pegem Yayıncılık. Degree, C. E., & Snyder, C. R. (1985). Adler’s Psychology (of use) today: Personal history of traumatic life events as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1512–1519.
  7. Elliot, A. J., Cury, F., Fryer, J. W., & Huguet, P. (2006). Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 344−361. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117−140. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
  8. Garcia, T. (1995). The role of motivational strategies in self-regulated learning. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 63, 29-42.
  9. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Higgins, R. L., & Harris, R. N. (1988). Strategic alcohol use: Drinking to self-handicap. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 191−202. Hirt, E