KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 69

Development of Perceived Family Boundaries in Young Adults Scale

Ali Ammar Kurt(MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8904-8091
N. Bilge Uzun(MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2293-4536
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2023-06-30
🏛️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)

It has been found that CFA fit indices are within acceptable limits and the scale has convergent and divergent validity.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The purpose of this research is to develop a relevant and reliable scale that aims to measure the family boundaries perceived by young individuals.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A 64-item item pool was created by the researchers, and the content validity index was calculated on the items where opinions from 10 different experts were submitted.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It has been found that CFA fit indices are within acceptable limits and the scale has convergent and divergent validity.
🔬Tür:Laboratuvar & Saha Deneyi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Family Boundaries · Young Adulthood · Scale Development

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to develop a relevant and reliable scale that aims to measure the family boundaries perceived by young individuals. A 64-item item pool was created by the researchers, and the content validity index was calculated on the items where opinions from 10 different experts were submitted. The application form, which reduced to 51 items after experts’ feedbacks, was applied to a total of 384 people and the observations obtained were analyzed by Explanatory Factor Analysis. EFA relieved that the scale has explained 43% of variance and has 3 subscales. The factors are named as "Freedom", "Rules" and "Privacy". The internal consistency coefficient was found .85. Internal consistency coefficients were obtained as .87 for the Freedom subscale, .78 for the Rules subscale, and .64 for the Privacy subscale. The scale was tested with Confirmatory Factor Analysis to confirm the structure it relieved. It has been found that CFA fit indices are within acceptable limits and the scale has convergent and divergent validity.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kurt, A. A., Uzun, N. B., *, A. A. K. (2023). Development of Perceived Family Boundaries in Young Adults Scale. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, Volume: 13 Issue: 69. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1297253ab

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (24)

  1. Ayre, C., & Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86. doı: 10.1177/0748175613513808.
  2. Bentler, P.M. & Bonnet, D. C. (1980), Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588-606.
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007), Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  5. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
  6. Colapinto, J. (2019). Structural family therapy. Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy, 2820-2828.
  7. Connell, C. (2010). Multicultural perspectives and considerations within structural family therapy: The premises of structure, subsystems and boundaries. Rivier Academic Journal, 6(2), 1-6.
  8. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  9. Davis L.L. (1992). Instrumentreview: Gettingthemostfrom a panel of experts. AppliedNursingResearch, 5, 194-197.
  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.
  11. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification, Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
  12. Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives,Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.
  13. Levenson E. (1972). The Fallacy of Understanding. New York, Basic Books.
  14. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.
  15. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families And Family Therapy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityPress.
  16. Minuchin, S. (1982). Reflections on boundaries. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 655-663.
  17. Nazlı, S. (2014). Aile Danışmanlığı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  18. Nichols, M. P. (2013). Aile Terapisi Kavramlar ve Yöntemler (Çeviri, O. Gündüz). İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.
  19. Özabacı, N. & Erkan, Z. (2014). Aile Danışmanlığı Kuram ve Uygulamaya Genel Bir Bakış. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  20. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C. & Adams J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62, 763-770.
  21. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson.
  22. Tezbaşaran, A. (2004). Likert Tipi Öçeklere Madde Seçmede Geleneksel Madde Analizi Tekniklerinin Karşılaştırılması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19 (54): 77-87.
  23. Vetere, A. (2001). Structural Family Therapy. Child Psycholgoy & Psychiatry Review, 6(3), 133-139.
  24. Young J. E., Klosko J., Weishaar M. E. (2003).Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York, NY, Guilford Press.