SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Geriatri Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1

GERİATRİK SOSYAL HİZMET YETKİNLİK ÖLÇEĞİ'NİN BİR GRUP SOSYAL HİZMET LİSANS ÖĞRENCİSİ ÜZERİNDE TÜRKÇE UYARLAMA ÇALIŞMASI

TURKISH ADAPTATION OF THE GERIATRIC SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY SCALE IN A GROUP OF SOCIAL WORK BACHELOR STUDENTS

Veli DUYAN
Tarık TUNCAY
Pages
60–67
Publication Date
2022-11-03
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)

Of the randomly selected sample,108 students (55.1%) were women and 88 (44.9%) were men, and their mean age was 23.24years (standard deviation 1.66; range: 21-31 years).Results: Cronbach's alpha showed an internal consistency of 0.885 for the values subscale,0.889 for the assessment subscale, 0.900 for the intervention subscale, 0.929 for the servicesubscale, and 0.966 overall.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Geriatric SocialWork Competency Scale (GSWCS) in a group of social work bachelor students.Materials and Method: To examine the validity and reliability of the scale, a Turkish version of the form was administered to 196 senior students from social work bachelor programs atAdnan Menderes, Ankara, Hacettepe, and Selçuk Universities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Of the randomly selected sample,108 students (55.1%) were women and 88 (44.9%) were men, and their mean age was 23.24years (standard deviation 1.66; range: 21-31 years).Results: Cronbach's alpha showed an internal consistency of 0.885 for the values subscale,0.889 for the assessment subscale, 0.900 for the intervention subscale, 0.929 for the servicesubscale, and 0.966 overall.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The total variability explained by all four dimensions was 59.27%.Conclusion: The current study with a group of social work bachelor students showed thatGSWCS was a valid and reliable scale for the Turkish population
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Geriatric SocialWork Competency Scale (GSWCS) in a group of social work bachelor students.Materials and Method: To examine the validity and reliability of the scale, a Turkish version of the form was administered to 196 senior students from social work bachelor programs atAdnan Menderes, Ankara, Hacettepe, and Selçuk Universities. Of the randomly selected sample,108 students (55.1%) were women and 88 (44.9%) were men, and their mean age was 23.24years (standard deviation 1.66; range: 21-31 years).Results: Cronbach's alpha showed an internal consistency of 0.885 for the values subscale,0.889 for the assessment subscale, 0.900 for the intervention subscale, 0.929 for the servicesubscale, and 0.966 overall. Principal component analysis was applied to examine the validity ofthe scale, and uncovered "values," "assessment," "intervention," and "service" as the four dimensions, explaining 45.067%, 56.352%, 53.252%, and 61.238% of the total variability, respectively. The total variability explained by all four dimensions was 59.27%.Conclusion: The current study with a group of social work bachelor students showed thatGSWCS was a valid and reliable scale for the Turkish population

Özet

Giriş: Bu çalışma Geriatrik Sosyal Hizmet Yetkinlik Ölçeği'nin geçerliğini ve güvenirliğini birgrup sosyal hizmet lisans öğrencisi üzerinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır.Gereç ve Yöntem: Ölçeğin güvenirliği ve geçerliğinin belirlenmesi için Türkçe formu, AdnanMenderes, Ankara, Hacettepe ve Selçuk üniversiteleri sosyal hizmet bölümlerinin son sınıfta okuyan 196 öğrenciye uygulandı. Araştırma kapsamına evrenden seçkisiz olarak alınan son sınıf öğrencilerinin 108'i (%55,1) kadın, 88'i (%44,9) erkektir. Öğrencilerin yaş ortalaması 23,24 (1,6)olup, yaşları 21 ile 31 arasında değişmektedir.Bulgular: Yüz doksan altı üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde uygulanan ölçeğin Cronbach Alphagüvenirlik değeri değerler alt ölçeği için 0,885, değerlendirme alt ölçeği için 0,889, müdahale altölçeği için 0,900, hizmet alt ölçeği için 0,929 ve geriatrik sosyal hizmet yetkinlik ölçeğinin tamamı için 0,966 olarak belirlendi. Geçerlik için yapılan temel bileşenler analizi sonuçları, ölçeğin dörtboyutu olduğunu; değerlerle, değerlendirmeyle, müdahaleyle ve hizmetle ilgili faktöre ait toplamdeğişkenliği açıklama yüzdesi sırasıyla %45,067, %56,352, %53,252, %61,238 ve toplamda%59,27 olduğunu göstermektedir.Sonuç: Bir grup üniversite öğrencisi ile yapılan bu çalışma Geriatrik Sosyal Hizmet YetkinlikÖlçeği'nin Türk toplumu geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

DUYAN, V., TUNCAY, T. (2022). GERİATRİK SOSYAL HİZMET YETKİNLİK ÖLÇEĞİ'NİN BİR GRUP SOSYAL HİZMET LİSANS ÖĞRENCİSİ ÜZERİNDE TÜRKÇE UYARLAMA ÇALIŞMASI. Türk Geriatri Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1, 60–67. https://ajindex.com/articles/623803

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Scharlach A, Damron-Rodriguez J, Robinson B, Feldman R. Educating social workers for an aging society: A vision for the 21st century. J Soc Work Educ 2000;36(3):521-38.
  2. Berkman B, Dobrof R, Harry L, DamronRodriguez J. A nation- al agenda for geriatric education: White papers, In: Klein SM, (ed). Social Work. New York, Springer 1997, pp 53-85.
  3. Chapin R, Cox EO. Changing the paradigm: Strengths-based and empowerment-oriented social work with frail elders. J Gerontol Soc Work 2002;36(3-4):165-79. Hackett S. Educating for competency and reflective practice: fostering a conjoint approach in education and training. J Work Learn 2001;13(3):103-12.
  4. Rosen AL, Zlotnik JL. Social work's response to the growing older population. Generations 2001;25(1):69-71.
  5. Rosen AL, Zlotnik JL, Singer T. Basic gerontological compe- tence for all social workers: The need to "gerontologize" social work education. J Gerontol Soc Work 2003;39(1-2):25-36.
  6. Snyder CS, Wesley SC, Lin MB, et al. Bridging the gap: geron- tology and social work education. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 2008;28(4):1-21. (PMID:19042218). Bogo M, Regehr C, Hughes J, Power R, Globerman J. Evaluating a measure of student field performance in direct service: Testing reliability and validity of explicit criteria. J Soc Work Educ 2002;38(3):385-401.
  7. Bogo M, Wells L, Abbey S, et al. Advancing social work prac- tice in the health field: a collaborative research partnership. Health Soc Work 1992;17(3):223-35. (PMID:1526602). Naito-Chan E, Damron-Rodriguez J, Simmons WJ. Identifying competencies for geriatric social work practice. J Gerontol Soc Work 2005;43(4):59-78. Damron-Rodriguez JA. Moving ahead: Developing geriatric social work competencies, In: B. Berkman, A. Horowitz, D. Padgett, D. Biegel, L. Chadiha, Howe J. (Eds). Handbook of Social Work in Health and Aging. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2006, pp 1051-68.
  8. Damron-Rodriguez J, Lawrance FP, Barnett D, Simmons J. Developing geriatric social work competencies for field educa- tion. J Gerontol Soc Work 2006;48(1-2):139-60. (PMID:17200076). Damron-Rodriguez JA, Volland PJ, Wright ME, Hooyman NR. Competency-based education: Implications of the Hartford Geriatric Social Work Approach, In: Reid HN (Ed). Transforming Social Work Education: The first decade of the Hartford Geriatric Social Work. Arlington, Council on Social Work Education Press, 2009 pp 21-50.
  9. Curl AL, Tompkins CJ, Rosen AL, Zlotnik JL. A case study of professional change: the impact of the national gerontologic