KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Balıkesir Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Turkish Adaptation of the Multidimensional Sport Fan Well-Being Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Zülbiye Kaçay(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SPOR BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9794-0888
Mustafa Ozan Altın(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7247-035X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

Keywords: Sport Psychology, Well-Being, Psychometrics, Validity, Factor Analysis

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish adaptation of the Multidimensional Sport Fan Well-Being Scale developed by Kumai et al. (2024).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: This methodological study was conducted with 363 adult sport fans in Türkiye (mean age=22.89±6.38 years).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Keywords: Sport Psychology, Well-Being, Psychometrics, Validity, Factor Analysis
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Sport Psychology · Well-Being · Psychometrics

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish adaptation of the Multidimensional Sport Fan Well-Being Scale developed by Kumai et al. (2024). Materials and Methods: This methodological study was conducted with 363 adult sport fans in Türkiye (mean age=22.89±6.38 years). The original scale was translated using forward–backward translation procedures. Construct validity was evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Sampling adequacy was assessed with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Results: The KMO value was 0.945 and Bartlett’s test was significant (χ²=7088.33, p<0.001). EFA revealed a three-factor structure explaining 79.05% of the total variance. While the eudaimonic and physical dimensions were largely preserved, hedonic and social dimensions merged under a single factor. CFA supported the three-factor model with acceptable fit indices (χ²/df=3.18, CFI=0.960, TLI=0.953, RMSEA=0.068). Internal consistency coefficients were high for the total scale (α=0.941) and for sub-dimensions (α range=0.920–0.946). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Multidimensional Sport Fan Well-Being Scale is a valid and reliable instrument. Findings indicate that, within the Turkish cultural context, hedonic and social aspects of fan experience are closely intertwined. The scale can be used to assess the psychosocial dimensions of sport fandom in future research. Keywords: Sport Psychology, Well-Being, Psychometrics, Validity, Factor Analysis

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kaçay, Z., Altın, M. O. (2026). Turkish Adaptation of the Multidimensional Sport Fan Well-Being Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Balıkesir Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.53424/balikesirsbd.1902690

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (24)

  1. Armbrecht, J., & Andersson, T. D. (2020). The event experience, hedonic and eudaimonic satisfaction and subjective well-being among sport event participants. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 12(3), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2019.1695346
  2. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  3. Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
  5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1
  6. Du, H., Baker, T. A., Su, Y., Byon, K., & Katz, M. (2025). Sport spectator well-being: A scoping review. Sport Management Review, 28(2), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2024.2421064
  7. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  8. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  9. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  10. Inoue, Y., Sato, M., & Filo, K. (2020). Transformative sport service research: Linking sport services with well-being. Journal of Sport Management, 34(4), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2020-0102
  11. Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197
  12. Kim, J., & Kim, Y. (2023). Coping with losses: Need unfulfillment, coping strategies and temporal well-being of sport fans. Sport Management Review, 26(5), 720–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2023.2210360
  13. Kinoshita, K., Usami, S., & Matsuoka, H. (2024). Perceived event impacts of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games on residents’ eudaimonic well-being: A longitudinal study of within-person changes and relationships. Sport Management Review, 27(3), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2023.2300160
  14. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  15. Kumai, T., Yoshida, M., Inoue, Y., Gordon, B. S., & Biscaia, R. (2025). A multidimensional scale for assessing sport fan well-being: An examination in the context of professional baseball. Managing Sport and Leisure, 30(6), 1267–1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2024.2392567
  16. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  17. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  18. 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(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
  19. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
  20. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
  21. Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon & Schuster. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  22. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
  23. Trainor, L. R., & Bundon, A. (2023). Clarifying concepts: “Well-being” in sport. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, Article 1256490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.1256490
  24. Yoshida, M., Sato, M., & Doyle, J. (2023). Feeling vital by watching sport: the roles of team identification and stadium attendance in enhancing subjective vitality. Journal of Sport Management, 37(4), 229-242. Retrieved Jun 2, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0174