Öfkeye İlişkin Derin Düşünme Ölçeği: Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı Öfkeye İlişkin Derin Düşünme Ölçeğinin (ÖiDDÖ) Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini incelemektir. Yöntem: Araştırmanın ilk adımını Sakarya Üniversitesi"nde öğrenim gören 544, ikinci adımını Anadolu Üniversitesi"nde öğrenim gören 405 üniversite öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. İlk adımda dilsel eşdeğerlik, açımlayıcı faktör analizi, iç tutarlılık katsayısı, test-tekrar test yöntemleri; ikinci adımda doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum geçerliliği çalışılmıştır. Sonuçlar: Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde toplam varyansın %52"sinin açıklandığı ve maddelerin dört faktörde toplandığı görülmüştür. Faktör yükleri 0.35-0.86 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizine göre ÖiDDÖ"nün kabul edilebilir bir uyum iyiliğine sahip olduğu söylene-bilir (?2=420, ?/sd=2.88, CFI=0.90, GFI=0.90, RMSEA=0.06 ve SRMR=0.05). ÖiDDÖ iç tutarlılık katsayısının 0.64-0.78, testtekrar test güvenilirlik katsayısının 0.79-0.86 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. ÖiDDÖ"nün, yaşam doyumu ile negatif, intikam ile pozitif yönde ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Tartışma: Geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışmalarının bulgularına göre ÖiDDÖ"nün Türkçe Formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir. Ölçeğin farklı araştırmalarda kullanılması, ölçeğin ölçme gücüne katkı sağlayabilir.

Anger Rumination Scale: Psychometric properties of the Turkish version

Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Anger Rumination Scale (ARS). Methods: The first phase of this study was conducted with 405 students from Sakarya University and the second phase was conducted with 544 students from Anadolu University. In the first phase, language equivalance, exploratory factor analysis, the internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were employed. The next phase, confirmatory factor analysis and concurrent validity were employed. Results: The total variance explained was 52% and factor loadings ranged from 0.35 to 0.86. Fit index values of the model were ?2=420, ?2/df=2.88, CFI=0.90, GFI=0.90 RMSEA=0.06, and SRMR=0.05. Internal consistencies varied between 0.64 and 0.78 and test-retest reliability coefficients ranged between 0.79 and 0.86 for four subscales. ARS was negatively corerelated with life satisfaction and positively correlated with vengeance. Conclusions: Overall findings demonstrated that this scale had high validity and reliability scores and that it may be used as a valid and reliable instrument in order to assess tendency to anger rumination. Nevertheless, further studies that will use ARS are important for its measurement force.

PDF

___

Fitzgibbons RP. The cognitive and emotive use of forgiveness in the treatment of anger. Psycho- therapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 1986; 23(2):629-633.
Sukhodolsky DG, Golub A, Cromwell EN. Development and validation of the anger rumina- tion scale. Pers Indiv Differ 2001; 31:689-700.
Lyubomirsky S, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Effects of self-focused rumination on negative thinking and interpersonal problem solving. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995; 69:176-190.
Nolen-Hoeksema S. Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. J Abnorm Psychol 1991; 100:569-582.
Barber L, Maltby J, Macaskill A. Angry memories and thoughts of revenge: The relationship be- tween forgiveness and anger rumination. Pers Indiv Differ 2005; 39:253-262.
Carson CL, Cupach WR. Fueling the flames of the green-eyed monster: The role of ruminative thought in reaction to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication 2000; 64(3):308-330.
Segerstrom SC, Stanton AL, Alden LA, Short- ridge BE. A multidimensional structure for repeti- tive thought: What"s on your mind, and how, and how much? J Pers Soc Psychol 2003; 85:909- 921.
Beck AT. Depression: Clinical, Experimental, and Theoretical Aspects. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
Just N, Alloy LB. The response styles theory of depression: Tests and an extension of the theory. J Abnorm Psychol 1997; 106:221-229.
Roberts JE, Gilboa E, Gotlib IH. Ruminative response style and vlnerability to episodes of dyshoria: gender, neuroticism, and episode duration. Cogn Ther Res 1998; 22(4):401-423.
Conway M, Csank PAR, Holm SL, Blake CK. On assessing individual differences in rumination on sadness. J Pers Assess 2000; 75:404-425.
Roger D, Najarian B. The relationship between emotional rumination and cortisol secretion under stress. Pers Indiv Differ 1998; 24:531-538.
DiGiuseppe R. Anger as a clinical problem. Paper presented at the 41st ABCT Annual Convention, Philadelphia, PA, 2007.
Berry JW, Worthington EL, Parrott L, O"Connor LE, Wade NG. Dispositional forgivingness: Development and construct validity of the trans- gression narrative test of forgivingness (TNTF). Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2001; 27:1277-1290.
McCullough ME, Bellah CG, Kilpatrick SD, John- son JL. Vengefulness: Relationships with forgive- ness, rumination, well-being, and the big five. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2001; 27:601-610.
Harvey AG, Greenall E. Catastrophic worry in primary insomnia. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2003; 34:11-23.
Langlois R, Freeston MH, Ladouceur R. Differ- ences and similarities between obsessive intru- sive thoughts and worry in a non-clinical popula- tion: study 1. Behav Res Ther 2000; 38(2):157- 173.
Bushman BJ. Does venting anger feed or ex- tinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, dis- traction, anger, and aggressive responding. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2002; 28:724-731.
Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Phillips CM. Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation, opportunity, and ag- gressive responding. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001; 81:17-32.
Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2006; 66(3):393-416.
Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Second ed., New York: The Guilford Press, 2005.
Büyüköztürk Ş, Akgün Ö, Kahveci Ö, Demirel F. Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalış- ması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 2004; 4(2):207-239.
Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 1985; 49:71-75.
Durak M, Senol-Durak E, Gencoz T. Psycho- metric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research 2010; 99(3):413-429.
Stuckless N, Goranson R. The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. J Soc Behav Pers 1992; 7:25-42.
Satıcı SA, Can G, Akın A. The Vengeance Scale:The validity and reliability of the Turkish version. Paper presented at International counseling and education conference 2012 (ICEC-2012), May, 3- 5, 2012, Istanbul, Turkey.
Brislin RW. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. HC Triandis, JW Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 1, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980, p.389-444.
Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Sekizinci baskı, Ankara: Pegem Yayıncı- lık, 2007.
Özdamar K. Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi I. Ysseldyk R, Matheson K, Anisman H. Rumina- tion: Bridging a gap between forgivingness, vengefulness, and psychological health. Pers Indiv Differ 2007; 42:1573-1584.