KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 1

KBRN Tehditlerine Yönelik Sivil Savunma Farkındalığı Ölçüm Aracının Geliştirilmesi ve Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi

Determination of Psychometric Properties of Civil Defence Awareness Scale for CBRN Threats

Bahadır Tercan(ERZİNCAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0001-5699-0208
Sayfa
47–64
Yayın Tarihi
2026-04-30
🏛️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)

Ayrıca doğrulayıcı faktör analizinden elde edilen uyum indeksleri, modelin yapısal geçerliliğini destekleyeceknitelikte ve yeterli düzeydedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Teknolojinin, bilgi birikiminin ve ekipman olanaklarının hızla evrildiği günümüzde, KBRN olaylarının korkutucu bir etkiyesahip olması hem bölgesel hem de ulusal düzeyde çok sayıda bireyin hayatını, sağlığını ve refahını ciddi derecede etkilemepotansiyeline sahiptir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışmanın amacı, kimyasal, biyolojik, radyolojik ve nükleer (KBRN) tehditlerde bireylerin sivilsavunma farkındalık düzeyini ölçmeye yönelik bir ölçme aracının geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini test etmektir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ayrıca doğrulayıcı faktör analizinden elde edilen uyum indeksleri, modelin yapısal geçerliliğini destekleyeceknitelikte ve yeterli düzeydedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2024 · 788 birey
⚙️Değişkenler:KBRN · Sivil savunma · Afet

Özet

Teknolojinin, bilgi birikiminin ve ekipman olanaklarının hızla evrildiği günümüzde, KBRN olaylarının korkutucu bir etkiyesahip olması hem bölgesel hem de ulusal düzeyde çok sayıda bireyin hayatını, sağlığını ve refahını ciddi derecede etkilemepotansiyeline sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kimyasal, biyolojik, radyolojik ve nükleer (KBRN) tehditlerde bireylerin sivilsavunma farkındalık düzeyini ölçmeye yönelik bir ölçme aracının geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini test etmektir. Bu doğrultudaTürkiye’de yaşayan 18 yaş üstü 788 bireyden Mayıs-Ağustos 2024 tarihleri arasında anket yöntemiyle veri toplanarakmetodolojik bir çalışma yürütülmüştür. Sivil Savunma Farkındalık Ölçeği (CDAS), içerik ve yapı geçerliliği açısından kabuledilebilir düzeydedir. Açıklayıcı faktör analizine göre 18 madde ve üç alt boyuttan oluşan ölçek toplam varyansın %63,68'iniaçıklamaktadır. Ayrıca doğrulayıcı faktör analizinden elde edilen uyum indeksleri, modelin yapısal geçerliliğini destekleyeceknitelikte ve yeterli düzeydedir.

Abstract

In today's world, where technology, knowledge, and equipment capabilities are rapidly evolving, CBRN incidents have the potential to seriously affect the lives, health, and well-being of many individuals at both the regional and national levels. The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of a measurement tool to measure the level of civil defense awareness of individuals in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats. In this context, a methodological study was conducted using survey data collected from 788 individuals over the age of 18 living in Turkey between February and May 2024. The data analysis process consisted of three stages: (1) item pool development, (2) preliminary item review, (3) finalization of the scale and evaluation of its psychometric properties. Validity and reliability analyses (content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, temporal stability) were conducted in accordance with the steps in the scale development manual. The Civil Defense Awareness Scale (CDAS) is at an acceptable level in terms of content and construct validity. According to the explanatory factor analysis, the scale consisting of 18 items and three sub-dimensions explains 63.68% of the total variance. In addition, the fit indices obtained from confirmatory factor analysis support the structural validity of the model and are at an acceptable level. The analyses indicate that the CDAS possesses adequate psychometric properties in terms of validity and reliability. The CDAS can be used to assess individuals’ civil defense awareness levels or to evaluate the effectiveness of preparedness efforts aimed at increasing civil defense awareness.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tercan, B. (2026). KBRN Tehditlerine Yönelik Sivil Savunma Farkındalığı Ölçüm Aracının Geliştirilmesi ve Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 1, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.17134/khosbd.1766447

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (68)

  1. S.A. Bland, Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) casualty management principles, in: J.M. Ryan, A.P.C.C.H. Buma, C.W. Beadling, A. Mozumder, D.M. Nott, N.M. Zengin, W. Henny, D. MacGarty (Eds.), “Conflict and Catastrophe Medicine: A Practical Guide,” Springer, London, 747-770, 2014.
  2. A. Malizia, “Disaster management in case of CBRNe events: an innovative methodology to improve the safety knowledge of advisors and first responders,” Defense & Security Analysis, 32, 1, 79-90, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2015.1130319
  3. G. Malich, R. Coupland, S. Donnelly, & J. Nehme, “Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear events: The humanitarian response framework of the International Committee of the Red Cross,” International Review of the Red Cross, 97, 899, 647-661, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383116000266
  4. G. Cameron, J. Pate, D. McCauley, & L. DeFazio, “1999 WMD terrorism chronology: Incidents involving sub‐national actors and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials,” The Nonproliferation Review, 7, 2, 157-174, 2000.
  5. A.A.I. Turan, “The new face of terror: biological terror,” Adli Bilimler ve Suç Araştırmaları, 3, 1-2, 97-106, 2021.
  6. M. Ortatatlı, S. Sezigen, H.A. Ayan, H. Balandız, & L. Kenar, “Terörizm kapsamında kimyasal, biyolojik, nükleer ve radyasyona bağlı yaralanmaların değerlendirilmesi,” Türkiye Klinikleri J Foren Med Special Topics, 1, 2, 44-52, 2015.
  7. L. Lemyre, J.E. Lee, M.C. Turner, & D. Krewski, “Terrorism preparedness in Canada: a public survey on perceived institutional and individual response to terrorism,” Int J Emerg Manag, 4, 2, 296-315, 2007. https:// doi.org/10.1504/ijem.2007.013995
  8. A.H. Dökmeci, & E. Deniz, “Kimyasal, biyolojik, radyolojik, nükleer (KBRN) olaylarında sağlık okuryazarlığı,” Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 6, 1, 273-293, 2023. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1136245
  9. RAND, “Are Local Health Responders Ready For Biological and Chemical Terrorism?.” https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP221.html. (17.12.2024).
  10. RAND, “Public Health Preparedness and Response to Chemical and Radiological Incidents: Functions, Practices, and Areas for Future Work.” https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR719.html. (18.12.2024).
  11. O. Cenciarelli, A. Malizia, M. Marinelli, S. Pietropaoli, R. Gallo, F. D’Amico, C. Bellecci, R. Fiorito, A. Gucciardino, & P. Gaudio, “Evaluation of biohazard management of the Italian national fire brigade,” Defence S&T Technical Bulletin. 6, 1, 33-41, 2013.
  12. C. Bolat, & S. Öztop, “İstanbul ilçe belediyelerinde sivil savunma birimlerinin yapısal ve işlevsel incelemesi,” Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 6, 3, 659-676, 2023. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1241639
  13. A. Khanal, “Civil Defence: an Article,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330322502_civil_defence_article_for_research_gate. (19.12.2024).
  14. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, “CBRN Glossary of Terms.” https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/e_Kutuphane/Kitaplar/KBRN-Terimler-Sozlugu-2021.pdf, 2021 (14.12.2024).
  15. H.Y. Khoshsabegheh, A. Ardalan, A. Takian, L. Hedayatifar, A. Ostadtaghizadeh, & B. Saeedi, “Social network analysis for implementation of the sendai framework for disaster risk reduction in Iran,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 16, 4, 1564-1572, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.167
  16. D. Alexander, “From civil defence to civil protection – and back again,” Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 11, 3, 209-213, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560210435803
  17. K.C. Habibullaevna, & T. Xamdam, “Training of the population in the field of civil defense and protection against emergencies,” Best Journal of Innovation in Science, Research and Development, 2,3, 17-20, 2023. https://www.bjisrd.com/index.php/bjisrd/article/view/86
  18. M. Bodas, M. Siman-Tov, S. Kreitler, & K. Peleg, “Assessment of emergency preparedness of households in Israel for war—current status,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 9, 4, 382-390, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.56
  19. C.E. Ekinci, (2019). “Savunma ve sığınma yapılarında kbrn tehditlerine karşı betonların zırhlanması.” Engineering Sciences, 14, 3, 119-153, 2019. https://doi: 10.12739/NWSA.2019.14.3.1A0437
  20. G.O. Boateng, T.B. Neilands, E.A. Frongillo, H.R. Melgar-Quiñonez, & S.L. Young, “Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer,” Front Public Health, 6, 149, 1-18, 2018. https://doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  21. R.F. DeVellis, “Scale Development: Theory and Applications,” Sage Publications, California, 2012.
  22. F.F. Morgado, J.F., Meireles, C.M. Neves, A.C. Amaral, & M.E. Ferreira, “Scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices,” Psicologia: Reflexãoe Crítica, 30, 3, 1-20, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1
  23. R.J. Brunton, R. Dryer, A. Saliba, & J. Kohlhoff, “The initial development of the pregnancy-related anxiety scale,” Women and Birth, 32, 1, 118-130, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.05.004
  24. N.A. Kapuscinski, & S.K. Masters, “The current status of measures of spirituality: a critical review of scale development,” Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 4, 191-205, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020498
  25. M. Grant, “After the bomb: civil defence and nuclear war in Britain, 1945-68,” Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009.
  26. E. Özçelik, “Türkiye kamu hastanelerinde, sivil savunma ve seferberlik hizmetleri durum değerlendirmesi,” International Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, 6, 37, 1838-1854, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.31576/smryj.648
  27. G. Günaydın, S. Şahinöz, & M. Günaydın, “Sığınak farkındalığı: Trabzon ili örneği,” Jass Studies-The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 14, 85, 275-287, 2021. https://doi.org/10.29228/JASSS.48478
  28. V. Bollettino, & B. Anders, “Civil–military coordination: A framework for measuring effectiveness in humanitarian response,” Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 2, 1, 3-10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.7227/JHA.029
  29. E. Titus, G. Lemmer, J. Slagley, & R. Eninger, “A review of CBRN topics related to military and civilian patient exposure and decontamination,” American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 14, 2, 137-149, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2019.0324
  30. J.M. Rodriguez-Llanes, D. Guha-Sapir, B.S. Schlüter, & M.H.R. Hicks, “Epidemiological findings of major chemical attacks in the Syrian war are consistent with civilian targeting: a short report,” Conflict and Health, 12, 16, 1-6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-018-0150-4
  31. K. Peleg, M., Michaelson, S.C., Shapira, & L. Aharonson-Daniel, “Principles of emergency management in disasters,” Advances in Renal Replacement Therapy, 10, 2, 117-121, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1053/jarr.2003.50019
  32. A. Bryman, & D. Cramer, “Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists,” Routledge, London, 2002.
  33. Ş. Büyüköztürk, “Faktör analizi: temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı,” Kuram Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483, 2002.
  34. L.L. Davis, “Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts,” App Nurs Res, 5, 4, 194-197, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
  35. M.R. Lynn, “Determination and quantification of content validity,” Nursing Research, 35, 6, 382-386, 1986.
  36. D.F. Polit, & C.T. Beck, “The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations,” Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 5, 489-497, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  37. J.S. Grant and L.L. Davis, “Selection and use of content experts for instrument development,” Res Nurs Health, 20, 3, 269-274, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199706)20:3 3.0.CO;2
  38. J. Epstein, R.M. Santo, & F. A. Guillemin, “Review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus,” J Clin Epidemiol, 68, 4, 435-441, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
  39. H. Şeker, & B. Gençdoğan, “Developing Measurement Tools in Psychology and Education,” Nobel Publishing, Ankara, 2006.
  40. Ş. Büyüköztürk, “Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı,” Pegem Akademi, Ankara, 2024.
  41. M. Kartal, & S. Bardakçi, “Reliability and Validity Analysis with SPSS and AMOS Applied Examples,” Akademisyen Publishing, Ankara, 2018.
  42. L.R. Fabrigar, & D.T. Wegener, “Exploratory Factor Analysis,” Oxford University Press, New York, 2012.
  43. Ö.M. Çolakoğlu, & C. Büyükekşi, “Açımlayıcı faktör analiz sürecini etkileyen unsurların değerlendirilmesi,” Karaelmas Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2, 1, 56-64, 2014.
  44. M. Alavi, D.C. Visentin, D.K. Thapa, G.E. Hunt, R. Watson, & M. Cleary, “Exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis in clinical studies: which one should you use?,” J Adv Nurs, 76, 8, 1886-1889, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14377
  45. S. Carpenter, “Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers,” Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 1, 25-44, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  46. M.M. Yaşlioğlu, “Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses,” Istanbul Business Research, 46, 74-85, 2017.
  47. H. Şencan, “Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik,” Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2005.
  48. R.K. Henson, &J.K. Roberts, “Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 3, 393-416, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644052824
  49. K. Özdamar, “Ölçek ve Test Geliştirme Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi,” Nisan Kitapevi, Eskişehir, 2017.
  50. J.P. Weir, “Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM,” J Strength Cond Res, 19, 1, 231-240, 2005.
  51. R.L. Worthington, & T.A. Whittaker, “Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices,” The Counseling Psychologist, 34,,6, 806-838, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000062881
  52. A.G. Yong, & S.A. Pearce, “Beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis,” Tutor Quant Methods Psychol, 9, 2, 79-94, 2013. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079 [53] B.G. Tabachnick, & L.S. Fidell, “Using Multivariate Statistics,” Pearson, New York, 2019. [54] T.A. Brown, “Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research,” Guilford Publications, New York, 2015. [55] J.T. Newsom, “Minimum sample size recommendations.” upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/semrefs.htm. (11.01.2025).
  53. F. Yağar, & S. Dökme, “Niteliksel araştırmaların planlanması: araştırma soruları, örneklem seçimi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik,” Gazi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 3, 3, 1-9, 2018.
  54. M.W. Browne & R. Cudeck, Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in: K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds), “Testing Structural Equation Models,” Sage, Newbury Park, 445-455, 1993.
  55. B.M. Byrne, “Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming,” Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001.
  56. L. Hu & P.M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Struct Equat Modell, 6, 1, 1-55, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  57. R.B. Kline, “Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling,” Guilford Press, New York, 2023. [61] L. Kriston, C. Günzler, A. Harms, & M. Berner, “Confirmatory factor analysis of the German version of the international index of erectile function (IIEF): a comparison of four models,” J Sexual Med, 5, 1, 92-99, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00474.x
  58. K. Schermelleh-Engel, H. Moosbrugger, & H. Muller, “Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures,” MPR-Online, 8, 2, 23-74, 2003.
  59. J. Shi, X. Mo, & Z Sun, “Content validity index in scale development,” Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban = Journal of Central South University (Medical Sciences), 37, 2, 152-155, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007
  60. M.W. Watkins, “Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice,” J Black Psychol, 44, 3, 219-246, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
  61. T.A. “Schmitt, Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis,” J Psychoedu Assess, 29, 4, 304-321, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653
  62. R. Alpar, “Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Yöntemler,” Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2020.
  63. M. Bursal, “SPSS ile Temel Veri Analizi,” Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2023.
  64. N. Shrestha, “Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis,” American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9, 1, 4-11, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
  65. J.F. Hair, C.B. William, J.B. Barry, & E.A. Rolph, “Exploratory Factor Analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, United States, 2014.
  66. B. Hasançebi, Y. Terzi, & Z. Küçük, “Madde güçlük indeksi ve madde ayırt edicilik indeksine dayalı çeldirici analizi,” Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 10, 1, 224-240, 2020. https://doi.org/10.17714/gumusfenbil.615465
  67. K.C. Habibullaevna, & T. Xamdam, “Training of the population in the field of civil defense and protection against emergencies,” Best Journal of Innovation in Science, Research and Development, 2,3, 17-20, 2023. https://www.bjisrd.com/index.php/bjisrd/article/view/86
  68. R.L. Worthington, & T.A. Whittaker, “Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices,” The Counseling Psychologist, 34,,6, 806-838, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000062881