SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 46

WORK COGNITION INVENTORY SCALE: A SCALE ADAPTATION STUDY

İŞ BİLİŞ ENVANTERİ ÖLÇEĞİ: BİR ÖLÇEK UYARLAMASI ÇALIŞMASI

Büşra MÜCELDİLİ
Berivan TATAR
Oya ERDİL
Pages
31–41
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)

As a result, we concluded that Turkish version of the Work Cognition Inventory is a valid and reliable scale.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to adapt the Work Cognition Inventory developed by Nimon and Zigarmi (2014) to Turkish and to investigate the psychometric properties of the adapted Turkish version of this scale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample used in this study consisted of 150 participants working in different sectors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, we concluded that Turkish version of the Work Cognition Inventory is a valid and reliable scale.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İş Biliş Envanteri · Ölçek Uyarlama · Geçerlilik

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt the Work Cognition Inventory developed by Nimon and Zigarmi (2014) to Turkish and to investigate the psychometric properties of the adapted Turkish version of this scale. In this context, first, second, and third order construct of the Work Cognition Inventory were examined in the current study. The sample used in this study consisted of 150 participants working in different sectors. The gathered data were analyzed through structural equation modeling by using confirmatory factor analysis, validity, and reliability analyses to examine the psychometric properties of the adapted scale. Based on the results, the Turkish version of the Work Cognition Inventory, which consists of three dimensions and 12 factors, was confirmed in this study. Additionally, our empirical results also showed that first and third order construct of the scale have appropriate goodness of fit values. As a result, we concluded that Turkish version of the Work Cognition Inventory is a valid and reliable scale.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Nimon ve Zigarmi (2014) tarafından geliştirilen İş Biliş Envanterini Türkçeye uyarlamak ve bu ölçeğin uyarlanmış Türkçe versiyonunun psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmada İş Biliş Envanterinin birinci, ikinci ve üçüncü seviye yapısı incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada kullanılan örneklem, farklı sektörlerde çalışan 150 katılımcıdan oluşmaktadır. Toplanan veriler, uyarlanan ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek için yapısal eşitlik modellemesi yoluyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, geçerlilik ve güvenirlik analizleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, bu çalışmada üç boyut ve 12 faktörden oluşan İş Biliş Envanterinin Türkçe versiyonu doğrulanmıştır. Buna ek olarak araştırma bulguları, ölçeğin birincil ve üçüncül düzey yapılarının uygun uyum iyiliği değerlerine sahip olduğunu ampirik olarak göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak İş Biliş Envanteri ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu saptanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

MÜCELDİLİ, B., TATAR, B., ERDİL, O. (2022). WORK COGNITION INVENTORY SCALE: A SCALE ADAPTATION STUDY. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 46, 31–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/587513

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C., Gunsel, A. (2011). “Antecedents and results of emotional capability in software development project teams”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 957-973.
  2. Allan, B. A. (2017). “Task significance and meaningful work: A longitudinal study”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 174-182.
  3. Ambrose, M. L., and Arnaud, A. (2005). “Distributive and procedural justice: Construct distinctiveness, construct interdependence, and overall justice”. The handbook of organizational justice, 59-84.
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). “Self-efficacy: The exercise of control”. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Soane, E. (2017). “The mismanaged soul: Existential labor and the erosion of meaningful work”. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 416-430.
  5. Brueller, D., Carmeli, A. (2011). “Linking capacities of high‐quality relationships to team learning and performance in service organizations”. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 455-477. Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. (2001). “Reflections on shared cognition”. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(2), 195-202.
  6. Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Mossholder, K. W. (2013). “Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-958.
  7. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., Ng, K. Y. (2001). “Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425. Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W. (1986). “On the causal ordering of job satisfaction organizational commitment”. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847–858.
  8. Dibble, R., Gibson, C. (2013). “Collaboration for the common good: An examination of challenges and adjustment processes in multicultural collaborations”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 764-790.
  9. Dodd, N. G., Ganster, D. C. (1996). “The interactive effects of variety, autonomy, and feedback on attitudes and performance”. Journal of organizational behavior, 17(4), 329-347.
  10. Eva, N., Meacham, H., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Tham, T. L. (2019). “Is coworker feedback more important than supervisor feedback for increasing innovative behavior?”. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 383-396. Fornell,