KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4

EUDAİMONİK ÖZ DÜZENLEME ÖLÇEĞİNİN (EÖDÖ) GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

DEVELOPING EUDAIMONIC SELF-REGULATION SCALE (ESRS): VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Nida Ates(İSTANBUL KÜLTÜR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5584-7378
Kuntay Arcan(MALTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8118-4547
Omer Simsek(İSTANBUL RUMELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6113-7057
Sayfa
1803–1839
Yayın Tarihi
2023-12-20
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

These results indicated that this scale was a valid and reliable instrument to assess eudaimonic self-regulation in the relevant researches.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The purpose of this current study is to develop the Eudaimonic Self-Regulation Scale, which measures the regulation of emotions, cognitions, behaviors and interpersonal relationships in order to reach the eudaimonia explained by ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Participants of the study consisted of 1042 adults between the ages of 18 and 65, including 3 different sample groups.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:These results indicated that this scale was a valid and reliable instrument to assess eudaimonic self-regulation in the relevant researches.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Eudaimonik öz düzenleme · Eudaimonia · Öz düzenleme

Özet

The purpose of this current study is to develop the Eudaimonic Self-Regulation Scale, which measures the regulation of emotions, cognitions, behaviors and interpersonal relationships in order to reach the eudaimonia explained by ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Eudaimonic Self-Regulation Scale, Flourishing Scale, Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale, Personal Growth Initiative Scale, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale were used as measurement instruments. Participants of the study consisted of 1042 adults between the ages of 18 and 65, including 3 different sample groups. As a result of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Eudaimonic Self Regulation Scale, a 10-factor structure model with 43 items, which explained % 57.93 of the total variance was obtained. According to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results, the factor loadings ranged from .48 to .88. In addition, model fit indices were satisfactory (χ2=2395.39; df=815, χ2/df=2.93, RMSEA=0.054, CFI=0.97, IFI=0.97, SRMR=0.050). Cronbach’s α values of sub-scales ranged from .75 to .89. In terms of convergent validity, eudaimonic self-regulation indicated significant correlations with psychological well-being, mindfulness, self-efficacy, and personal growth initiative. According to the results of test-retest reliability analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from .82 to .94, Pearson's correlation coefficients were between .71 and .88. These results indicated that this scale was a valid and reliable instrument to assess eudaimonic self-regulation in the relevant researches.

Abstract

The purpose of this current study is to develop the Eudaimonic Self-Regulation Scale, which measures the regulation of emotions, cognitions, behaviors and interpersonal relationships in order to reach the eudaimonia explained by ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Eudaimonic Self-Regulation Scale, Flourishing Scale, Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale, Personal Growth Initiative Scale, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale were used as measurement instruments. Participants of the study consisted of 1042 adults between the ages of 18 and 65, including 3 different sample groups. As a result of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Eudaimonic Self Regulation Scale, a 10-factor structure model with 43 items, which explained % 57.93 of the total variance was obtained. According to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results, the factor loadings ranged from .48 to .88. In addition, model fit indices were satisfactory (χ2=2395.39; df=815, χ2/df=2.93, RMSEA=0.054, CFI=0.97, IFI=0.97, SRMR=0.050). Cronbach’s α values of sub-scales ranged from .75 to .89. In terms of convergent validity, eudaimonic self-regulation indicated significant correlations with psychological well-being, mindfulness, self-efficacy, and personal growth initiative. According to the results of test-retest reliability analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from .82 to .94, Pearson's correlation coefficients were between .71 and .88. These results indicated that this scale was a valid and reliable instrument to assess eudaimonic self-regulation in the relevant researches.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ates, N., Arcan, K., Simsek, O. (2023). EUDAİMONİK ÖZ DÜZENLEME ÖLÇEĞİNİN (EÖDÖ) GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 1803–1839. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1282677

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (63)

  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 analysis. Psychometrika, 49 (2), 155-173.
  2. Akın A. & Anlı G. (2011). Bireysel gelişim inisiyatifi ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (1), 42-49.
  3. Akın, A., Demirci, İ., Çardak, M., Işık, Y. & Yıldız, E. (2012). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Cognitive and Affective Regulation Scale. Paper presented at the International Interdisciplinary Social Inquiry Conference- IISIC, Haziran, 17-21, Bursa, Turkey.
  4. Aristoteles (2014). Nikomakhos’a etik. F. Akderin (çev.), İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
  5. Aristoteles (2015). Eudemos’a etik. S. Babür (çev.), Ankara: Bilge Su Yayıncılık.
  6. Artıran, M. (2015). Akılcı Duygucu Davranışçı Kuram ve öz-belirlenim kuramı çerçevesinde yeni bir ölçek: Akılcı-Duygucu Öz-Belirlenim (ADÖB) Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi, SBE.
  7. Aydın, S., Keskin, M. Ö. & Yel, M. (2013). Öz-düzenleme ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Turkish Journal of Education, 3 (1), 24-33.
  8. Aypay, A. (2010). Genel Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin GÖYÖ Türkçe’ye Uyarlama Çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (2), 113-112.
  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hail.
  10. Bandura, A. (2010). Self-Efcacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836
  11. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83 (5), 762.
  12. Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.). (1999). The self in social psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  13. Baumeister R.F., Vohs K.D. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. R.F. Baumeister & K.D. Vohs (Eds.) içinde, Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, (s.1-9). NewYork: Guilford Press.
  14. Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. & Tice, D.M. (1994). Losing Control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  15. Boylu, Ş. A. (2018). Evli bireylerin bilinçli farkındalık düzeyleri ile evlilik doyumu ve problem çözme becerisi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yükseklisans tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi.
  16. Brown, J. M. (1998). Self-regulation and the addictive behaviors. W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Ed.) içinde, Treating Addictive Behaviors (s. 61-74). NewYork: Plenum Press.
  17. Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R. & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The self-regulation questionnaire. L. VandeCreek & T. L. Jackson (Ed.) içinde, Innovations in clinical practice: A sourcebook, vol. 17 ( s. 281 – 292). Sarasota, FL: ProfessionalResource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.
  18. Brown, K. W. & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (4), 822.
  19. Bujang, M. A. & Baharum, N. (2017). A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Archives of Orofacial Science, 12 (1), 1-12.
  20. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32 (32), 470-483.
  21. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
  22. Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., Parker, J. D. & Epstein, J. N. (1998). The revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26 (4), 257-268.
  24. Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10 (1), 7.
  25. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2017). S. K. Akbaş (çev.), Akış. Ankara: Buzdağı Yayınevi.
  26. Çelikler, A. N. (2017). Bir grup genç yetişkinde bilinçli farkındalık düzeyi ile başa çıkma tutumları ve psikolojik iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: Haliç Üniversitesi, SBE.
  27. Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ. & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Öğretmen özyeterlik inancı ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4 (1), 20-32.
  28. De Ridder, D. T. & De Wit, J. B. (2006). Self-regulation in health behavior: concepts, theories, and central issues. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  29. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S. & Biswas Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156.
  30. Duyan, V. & Gelbal, S. (2010). Barnett Çocuk Sevme Ölçeği’ni Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33 (148), 40-48.
  31. Duyan, V., Gülden, Ç. & Gelbal, S. (2012). Öz-Denetim Ölçeği (ÖDÖ): güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Journal of Society & Social Work, 23 (1), 25-38.
  32. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
  33. Goldstein, G. & Watson, J. R. (1989). Test-retest reliability of the Halstead Reitan battery and the WAIS in a neuropsychiatric population. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3(3), 265-272.
  34. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  35. Grossarth-Maticek, R. & Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Self-regulation and mortality from cancer, coronary heart disease, and other causes: A prospective study. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 781–795.
  36. Harma, M. (2008). The impact of parental control and marıtal conflict on adolescents’ self regulatıon and adjustment. Unpublished Master’ s Thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  37. Huta, V. (2013). Eudaimonia. S. A. David, I. Boniwell ve A. Conley Ayers (Ed.) içinde, Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of happiness (s.201–213). Oxford University Press.
  38. Kanfer, F. H. (1970). Self-regulation: Research, issues, and speculations. C. Neuringer ve J. L. Michael (Ed.) içinde, Behavior modification in clinical psychology (s. 178-220). New York: Meredith Corporation.
  39. Kermen, U., Tosun, N. İ. & Doğan, U. (2016). Yaşam doyumu ve psikolojik iyi oluşun yordayıcısı olarak sosyal kaygı. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 (1), 20-29.
  40. Köroğlu, E. (2015). Psikiyatri başvuru elkitabı. 3. Baskı. Ankara: HYB yayıncılık.
  41. Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self- regulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) içinde, Handbook of self- regulation (s. 111–169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  42. McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  43. Miller, W. R. ve Brown, J. M. (1991). Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention and treatment of addictive behaviours. N. Heather, W. R. Miller ve J. Greeley (Ed.) içinde, Self-control and the addictive behaviours. Sydney: Maxwell Macmillan Publishing Australia.
  44. Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long term self regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36 (6), 835-848.
  45. Nagel, T. (1972). Aristotle on eudaimonia. Phronesis, 17 (3), 252-259.
  46. Özyeşil, Z., Arslan, C., Kesici, Ş. Ve Deniz, M. E. (2011). Bilinçli Farkındalık Ölçeği’ni Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (160), 225-235.
  47. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T. & McKeachie W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122.
  48. Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30 (4), 183.
  49. Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J. & Credé, M. (2005). The multidimensional nature of ageism: Construct validity and group differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (3), 335-362.
  50. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069 –1081.
  51. Sayar, K., Güleç, H. & Ak, I. (2001). Yirmi soruluk Toronto Aleksitimi Ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. 37. Ulusal Psikiyatri Kongresi Kitabı, (s 130).
  52. Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A. & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62 (3), 763-770.
  53. Scholz, U., Doña, B. G., Sud, S. & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18 (3), 242.
  54. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A. & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (6), 323-338.
  55. Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (2010). The general self-efficacy scale (GSE). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 329-345.
  56. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
  57. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (sixth ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  58. Telef, B. B. (2013). Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği (PİOO): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (3), 374-384.
  59. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
  60. Van den Bergh, B. R. & Van Ranst, N. (1998). Self-concept in children: Equivalence of measurement and structure across gender and grade of Harter's Self Perception Profile for Children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70 (3), 564-582.
  61. Yiğit, İ., & Guzey Yiğit, M. (2019). Psychometric properties of Turkish version of difficulties in emotion regulation scale-brief form (DERS-16). Current Psychology, 38, 1503-1511.
  62. Yurcu, G. ve Atay, H. (2015). Çalışanların öznel iyi oluşunu etkileyen demografik faktörlerin incelenmesi: Antalya ili konaklama işletmeleri örneği. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4 (2), 17-34.
  63. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.) içinde, Handbook of self-regulation (s. 13-40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, doi: 10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7