The Mindful Coping Scale: The Validity And Reliability Of Turkish Version

In this study, it was aimed to make validity and reliability analyses by adapting the mindful coping scale into Turkish. The scale was enhanced by Tharaldsena and Bruc (2011). The sample group consisted of 283 high school students in the adaptation study. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was implemented for construct validity of the scale. DFA results showed that chi-square value (x² = 639.87, N = 283, df = 221, p = 0.00) was significant. Fit index values were found to be RMSEA=.076, CFI=.88, IFI=.88, GFI=.85, SRMR=.074. The reliability of the scale was calculated by Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient and Item Total Correlation Coefficient. The Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient of the mindful coping scale was found to be .71 for the awareness sub-dimension, .79 for the distraction sub-dimension, .72 for the negative emotion prevention sub-dimension, and .71 for the self-revealing sub-dimension. It was determined that the Mindful Coping Scale of Item-Total Correlations was .31-.57 for the awareness sub-dimension, .33-.69 for the distraction sub-dimension, .38-.53 for the sub-dimension of prevention of negative emotions, that it ranged from 38 to .59 for constructive self-assertion sub-dimension. According to the results of the study, it can be said that mindful coping scale is a valid and reliable.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Mindful coping, validity and reliability

Investigation of Word Decoding Strategies of University Students From Quantitative and Verbal Graduate Programs

This is a descriptive study aiming to examine the main word decoding strategies of university students from quantitative and verbal graduate programs. A total of 271 (135 quantitative; 136 verbal) university students were enrolled in the current study and the word decoding skills were evaluated with two different processes that include decoding of real- words and decoding of pseudo-words. In this stage, real- word pairs and pseudo- word pairs formed from real- words were used. The students read the words silently through a computer program and decided whether the word pairs were the same. Their responses were recorded by the computer program for accuracy and speed. Data were analyzed by using variance analysis (GLM-ANOVA) and two-factor MANOVA (GLM-MANOVA) tests. The results showed that students in both groups decoded the real- words faster than the pseudo-words. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their word decoding performance. In the conclusion part of the study, the findings obtained from the analyzes and the word decoding strategies of the students were discussed in detail based on the one-route and dual route-cascaded reading model in the literature. These results suggest that university students from quantitative and verbal programs have similar word decoding strategies.

Keywords:

Dual route-cascaded reading model, phonological decoding, reading university students, word decoding,

PDF

___

Alidina, S. (2010). Mindfulness for dummies. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Alidina,S. ve Marshall, J.J. (2013). Mindfulness workbook for dummies. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Averill, J. R. (1992). The structural bases of emotional behavior: A metatheoretical analysis. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 1–24.
Bedel, A., Işık, E. ve Hamarta, E. (2014). Ergenler İçin Başa Çıkma Ölçeğinin (EBÇÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması, Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 227-235.
Bishop, S.R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N.D., Carmody, J…………& Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operatiınal definition. Clinical psychology: Science and Practice, 11: 230-241.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (Genişletilmiş 21. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
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), 822-848.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. 2007. Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18: 211-237.
Bruna, J. (2018). The essential guidebook to mındfulness in recovery. Las Vegas: Central Recovery Press.
Germer, C. K. (2005a). Mindfulness: What is it? What does it matter? In C. K. Germer, R. D. Siegel, & P. R. Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy (pp. 3–27). New York: Guilford Press.
Germer, C. K. (2005b). Teaching mindfulness in therapy. In C. K. Germer, R. D. Sie-gel, & P. R. Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy (pp. 113–129). New York: Guilford Press.
Halland, E., De Vibe, M., Solhaug, I., Friborg, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., Tyssen, R., ... & Bjørndal, A. (2015). Mindfulness training improves problem-focused coping in psychology and medical students: Results from a randomized controlled trial. College Student Journal, 49(3), 387-398.
Harvey, P. (2000). An introduction to Buddhist ethics: Foundations, values and issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 55-65.
Jacobs, S. J., & Blustein, D. L. (2008). Mindfulness as a coping mechanism for employment uncertainty. The Career Development Quarterly, 57(2), 174-180.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2001). Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. London: Piatkus Books.
Kabat‐Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness‐based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 10(2), 144-156.
Marcoulides, G. ve Schumacher, R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates, Publishers.
Mayer, J. D., Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K. (1997). Conation, affect, and cognition in personality. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Schermelleh, Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Of Psychological Research Online, Volume: 8 (2), pp: 23-74.
Schumacher, R. ve Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structual equation modelling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates, Publishers.
Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları, Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları.
Tharaldsena, K.B. ve Bruc, E. (2011). Validation of the mindful coping scale. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 16(1), 87-103.
Thondup, T. (1996). The healing power of mind. London, UK: Penguin.
Westen, D. (1999). Psychology: mind, brain, and culture (2nd ed). New York: Wiley.