Journals / OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 16

The Analysis of Turkish Validity and Reliability on the Short Version of Argumentativeness Scale

Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği Kısa Formunun Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Analizi

Pages
731–759
Publication Date
2018-12-30
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 of the analyzes conducted, it was validated that the 10-item argumentativeness scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool and consisted of two sub-dimensions as approaching-avoidant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this research, the validation study on the Turkish version of the short form of the Argumentativeness Scale, which is developed by Infante and Rancer (1982), was performed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this faculty, face-to-face surveys were conducted with the undergraduate students who were educated in 11 different departments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analyzes conducted, it was validated that the 10-item argumentativeness scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool and consisted of two sub-dimensions as approaching-avoidant.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapı Geçerliliği · Güvenilirlik Analizi · Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği

Abstract

In this research, the validation study on the Turkish version of the short form of the Argumentativeness Scale, which is developed by Infante and Rancer (1982), was performed. The validity study of the Argumentativeness Scale was carried out within the scope of five main processes. These processes consist of stages as determining the scale, determining the sample, translating, analyzing, and comparing and evaluating. At these stages, it is tried to use the most effective analysis and comparison methods based on universal and current applications. The study was conducted in Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in Isparta. In this faculty, face-to-face surveys were conducted with the undergraduate students who were educated in 11 different departments. The scale was applied to two different groups and the validity was determined. The method followed by Brislin et al. (1973) was used to test the construct validity of the short version of Argumentativeness Scale. In this context, scale was translated into Turkish by translation and back-translation method and was applied to a total of 1561 as female (n = 997) and male (n = 564) a total of 1561 undergraduate students. The scale was tested by using factor analyzes and internal consistency analyzes at different times in two separate samples. As a result of the exploratory and confirmatory analyzes conducted, it was validated that the 10-item argumentativeness scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool and consisted of two sub-dimensions as approaching-avoidant. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, two sub-dimensions (approaching and avoiding dimension) of the Short Version of Argumentativeness Scale, which were compatible with the original, were confirmed in both female and male students. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, the goodness of fit values ​​of the female and male sample group were above the threshold values ​​and these values ​​confirmed the two-dimensional structure of the scale. As a result of the analyzes conducted, it was validated that the 10-item argumentativeness scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool and consisted of two sub-dimensions as approaching-avoidant.

Özet

Araştırmada orijinal formu 20-maddeli olan, Infante ve Rancer (1982) tarafından geliştirilen Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği’nin kısa formunun Türkçe geçerleme çalışması yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlilik çalışması beş temel süreç kapsamında yürütülmüştür. Bu süreçler; ölçek belirleme, örneklemin belirlenmesi, tercüme, analiz ile karşılaştırma ve değerlendirme aşamalarından oluşturulmuştur. Bu aşamalarda evrensel ve güncel uygulamalardan yola çıkılarak en etkin analiz ve karşılaştırma yöntemleri kullanılmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırma Isparta ilinde faaliyet gösteren Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve idari Bilimler fakültesinde yürütülmüştür. On bir ayrı bölümde eğitim alan lisans öğrencileriyle anketler yüz yüze uygulanarak veriler toplanmıştır. Kısaltılmış Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliğini test etmek için Brislin ve arkadaşları (1973) tarafından izlenen yöntem takip edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda ölçek çeviri ve geri-çeviri yöntemiyle Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş ve kadın (n= 997) ve erkek (n=564) toplam 1561 üniversite öğrencisinde uygulanmıştır. Ölçek, iki ayrı örneklemde farklı zamanlarda uygulanan keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, içsel tutarlılık analizleri ile karşılaştırmalar yapılarak sınanmıştır. Keşfedici faktör analizi sonucunda hem kadın hem de erkek öğrenci örnekleminde Kısaltılmış Tartışmacı Tutum Ölçeği’nin orijinaline uyumlu iki alt boyutlu hali (yaklaşma ve kaçınma boyutu) doğrulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda da kadın ve erkek örneklem grubu katılımcılarında uyum iyiliği değerleri eşik değerler ve üzerinde gerçekleşmiş, bu değerler ölçeğin iki boyutlu yapısını doğrulamıştır. Yürütülen analizler sonucunda 10-maddelik tartışmacı tutum ölçeği kısa formunun güvenilir ve geçerli bir ölçüm aracı olduğu ve yaklaşmacı - kaçınmacı olarak iki alt boyuttan oluştuğu geçerlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURUNÇ, Ö., Eser, H. B., Dinç, M. (2018). The Analysis of Turkish Validity and Reliability on the Short Version of Argumentativeness Scale. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 16, 731–759. https://ajindex.com/articles/76784

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Alcala, C.G. (2012). The development and testing of the spanish – language versions of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akron Üniversitesi.
  2. Anderson, C.M. ve Martin, M.M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports, 12, 21-31.
  3. Avtgis, T.A. ve Rancer, A.S. (2002). Aggressive communication across cultures: a comparison of aggressive communication among United States, New Zealand and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(2), 191-200.
  4. Avtgis, T.A., Rancer, A.S., Kamjeva, P.A. ve Chorry, R.M. (2008). Argumentative and aggressive communication in bulgaria: Testing for conceptual and methodological equivalence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 17-24.
  5. Bayer, C. ve Cegala, D. (1992). Traits verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness: relations with parenting style. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 301-310.
  6. Blickle, G. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement of argumentativeness: A decade later. Psychological Reports, 77, 99-110.
  7. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., Thorndike, R. M. (1973).Cross-cultural research methods, New York: John Wileyve Sons Pub. Cann, A., Norman, A.M., Welbourne, J.L. ve Calhaun, L.G. (2008). Attachment styles, conflict styles and humour styles: interrelationships and associations with relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22, 131-146.
  8. Croucher, S.M., Oommen, D., Hicks, M.V., Holody, K.J., Anarbeava, J., Yoon, K., Spencer, A., March, C. ve Aljahli, A.I. (2010). The effects of self-construal and religiousness on argumentativeness: a cross-cultural analysis. Communication Studies, 61, 135-155.
  9. Croucher, S.M., DeMaris, A., Diers-Lawson, A.R. ve Roper, S. (2017). Self-reporting and the argumnetativeness scale: an emprical examination. Argumentation, 31, 23-43.
  10. Daly, J.A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and directions. İçinde J.C. McCroskey ve J.A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and Interpersonal Communication, (pp. 13-41).
  11. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Hamilton, M.A. ve Mineo, P.J. (2002). Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: a meta-analytic review. İçinde M. Allen, R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle ve N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal Communication Research: Advances through Meta-Analysis(pp. 281-314).
  12. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum. Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices