Journals / Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi / 2006 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 26

ADAPTATION OF RESILIENCE SCALE (RS) TO THE TURK CULTURE: IT’S RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Kendini Toparlama Gücü Ölçeği’nin Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışmaları

Pages
77–86
Publication Date
2006-04-18
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)

Considering reliability and validity study results, it can be concluded that RS was a valid and reliable instrument.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the reliability and validity of the Turkish adaptation of “Resilience Scale”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample consisted of 155 undergraduates from the Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering reliability and validity study results, it can be concluded that RS was a valid and reliable instrument.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ANAHTAR SÖZCÜKLER: Kendini toparlama gücü · kendini toparlama gücü ölçeği

Abstract

This study investigates the reliability and validity of the Turkish adaptation of “Resilience Scale”. The sample consisted of 155 undergraduates from the Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara. Scale used in the research was a 24-item Likert-type revised “Resilience Scale” (RS) with 7-point response format. The construct validity of RS was examined by factor analysis. To test concurrent validity, correlations between scores on RS and “Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale” were calculated. There was a significant relationship between scores on the two scales (r = .83). Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was found .82; test-retest correlation coefficient was r = .84. Item-total correlations coefficiencies were .03 through .69. Considering reliability and validity study results, it can be concluded that RS was a valid and reliable instrument.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Kendini Toparlama Gücü Ölçe-ği’nin (KTGÖ) Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve ölçeğin ge-çerlik, güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Araştırma 2005-2006 öğretim yılında Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören 155 öğrenci üzerinde ya-pılmıştır. Ölçek 24 maddeli 7’li Likert tipi bir ölçektir. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği faktör analizi ile saptanmıştır. Yapılan benzer ölçekler geçerliği çalışmasında ise KTGÖ ile Genelleştirilmiş Özyeterlik Ölçeği arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur (r = .83). Ölçeğin cronbach alpha güvenirlik katsayısı .82; test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı r = .84 olarak saptanmıştır. Ölçeğin madde toplam korelasyonları ise .03 ile .69 arasında bulunmuştur. Analizler sonucunda, KTGÖ’nin üniversi-te öğrencilerinin kendini toparlama gücü düzeylerini belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğuna karar verilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TERZİ, Ş. (2006). ADAPTATION OF RESILIENCE SCALE (RS) TO THE TURK CULTURE: IT’S RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 26, 77–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/64657

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Allen, L. R. ve Hurtes, K. (1999). Making an Impact. Parks ve Recreation, 34 (11). Aroian ve ark. (1997). Psychometric Evaluation of The Russian Language Version of The Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 5 (2). Baldwın, A. L., Baldwın, C. P., Kasser, T., Zax, M., Sameroff, A. ve Seıfer, R. (1993). Contextual Risk and Resiliency During Late Adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 741-761.
  2. Beauvaıs, F. ve Oettıng, E. R. (1999).
  3. Drug Use, Resilience, and Myth of the Golden Child. In M. D. Glantz ve J. L. Johnson (Eds.) Resilience And Development: Positive Life Adaptations (pp.101-107). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
  4. Benard, B. (1996). The Foundations of The Resiliency Paradigm. Premier Issue. Bland, L. ve Sowa, C. (1994). An Overview of Resilience in Gifted Children. Roeper Review, 17 (2), 77-74.
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara:
  6. Pegem A Yayıncılık. Cowen, E. L. (1998). Changing Concept of Prevention in Mental Health. Journal of Mental Health, v: 7, n: 5, 451-461.
  7. Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in Poverty: Resilience Despite Risk. Pediatry, 56, 217-136.
  8. Gizir, C. A. (2004). Academic Resilience: An Investigation of Protective Factors Contrubiting To The Academic Achievement of Eight Grade Students in Poverty. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi,
  9. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Hawkins, J. D. (1992). Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
  10. Howard, S. ve Johnson, B. (2000). What Makes The Difference? Children and Teachers Talk About Resilient Outcomes for Children "At Risk". Educational Studies, 26 (3), 321-339.
  11. Jew, C., Green, K. E. ve Kroger, J. (1999). Development and Validation of a Measure of Resiliency. Measurement ve Evaluation in Counseling ve Development, 32 (2), 75-90.
  12. Luthar, S. ve Zıgler, E. (1992). Intelligence and Social Competence Among High-Risk Adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 287-299.
  13. Mangham, C., Mcgrath, P., Reıd, G. ve Stewart, M. (1999). Resiliency: Relevance to Health Promotion Detailed Analysis. Dalhousie University: Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre. Masten, A. S. (2001). Resilience Processes in Development. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 227-238.
  14. Masten, A., Best, K. ve Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and Development: Contributions From the Study of Children Who Overcome Ad