Journals / Kastamonu Education Journal / 2014 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2

THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF RATIONAL EXPERIANTIAL INVENTORY

MANTIKSAL DENEYİMSEL DÜŞÜNME ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇE FORMUNUN GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Pages
555–571
Publication Date
2016-07-15
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)

Findings indicate that the re-adapted inventory is a valid and reliable inventory and its structure differentiate according to the age of the study group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to adapt the Rational Experiential Inventory which was developed by Pacini and Epstein (1999) on young adults.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The total variance explained by the scale is 41.5%.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings indicate that the re-adapted inventory is a valid and reliable inventory and its structure differentiate according to the age of the study group.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:mantıksal deneyimsel benlik kuramı · düşünme biçemleri · mantıksal deneyimsel düşünme ölçeği

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to adapt the Rational Experiential Inventory which was developed by Pacini and Epstein (1999) on young adults. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine the construct validity and the Cronbach Alpha correlation coefficient was used to examine the internal consistency of the scale. As a result of exploratory factor analysis, a-four factor structure-which is same as the original form- was determined. CFA indicated goodnes of fit between model and data. The total variance explained by the scale is 41.5%. Findings indicate that the re-adapted inventory is a valid and reliable inventory and its structure differentiate according to the age of the study group.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı Pacini ve Epstein (1999) tarafından geliştirilen Mantıksal ve Deneyimsel Düşünme Ölçeğini (MDDÖ) genç yetişkinler üzerinden Türkçe’ye uyarlamaktır. Mantıksal ve Deneyimsel Düşünme Ölçeği’nin yapı geçerliği açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yöntemleri ile güvenirliği ise Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. AFA sonucunda orijinal ölçekte olduğu gibi dört faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi sonuçları model veri arasındaki uyumun iyiliğine işaret etmektedir. Ölçeğin açıkladığı toplam varyans %41.5tir. Sonuçlar uyarlanan ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğuna ve ölçeğin yapısının uyarlanan grubun yaşına bağlı olarak farklılaştığına işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRK, E. G., GÜLLEROĞLU, D. (2016). THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF RATIONAL EXPERIANTIAL INVENTORY. Kastamonu Education Journal, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2, 555–571. https://ajindex.com/articles/940923

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Anderson J.C., Gerbing, D.W. (1984) The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analy- sis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-173.
  2. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. (First Edition). NY: Guilford Publications, Inc. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Özkahveci, Ö., Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve öğrenme statejileri ölçeğinin türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygula- mada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4 (2), 210-239.
  3. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. (3rd Edition). New York: Continuum. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010).Çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Birinci baskı). Ankara:
  4. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  5. Daniel, F., Nicole, E., Rachel, L (2012). Gut feelings, deliberative thought and paranoid ide- ation: a study of experiential and rational reasoning. Psychiatry Research 1/2, 119-122
  6. Denes-Raj V., Epsteın S. (1994). Conflict between ıntuitive and rational processing: When pe- ople behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 819-829.
  7. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconcious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709-724.
  8. Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experientaial self theory: A dual process personality theory with ımplications for diagnosis and psychotherapy. In R. F. Bornstein and J.M.Masling (Eds.), emprical research on the pschoanalytic unconcious (Vol 7, p. 99-140). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association. Epstein, S. (2006). Conscious and unconcious self-esteem from the perspective of cognitive experiential self theory. In M.H. Kernis (Eds.), Self-esteem Issues and Answers: A sour- cebook of current perspectives (p.69-76). NewYork: Psychology Pres. Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outco- mes: evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 328-339.
  9. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in ıntuitive- experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405. Erkuş.A, (2003). Psikometri üzerine yazılar. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları Evans, J. (2008). Dual processing accounts of reasoning, judgement and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
  10. Feng, B., Lee, K.J. (201