Mustafa Alperen KURŞUNCU, Şule BAŞTEMUR

The adaptation of the Triangular Relationship Inventory into Turkish: the study of validity and reliability for university students

Objective: The Triangular Relationship Inventory (TRI) assesses different configurations of family triangulation. The current study investigated the psychometric properties of the TRI to disseminate the familiarity of the family-of-origin variables in Turkey for the researchers and practitioners. Methods: The current sample composed of young adults; three hundred and eighty-seven university students completed the measures of TRI, Intergenerational Triangulation Subscale (INTRI), and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS). First and high-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the TRI’s four-factor structure. Results: The first-order CFA findings indicated mediocre evidence for the four-factor structure, but the scapegoat was only the subscale that was significantly not loaded to the higher-order CFA model. Moreover, the scapegoating construct produced no significant correlations with INTRI in convergent validity. Measurement invariance, Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s Omega coefficients, and test-retest reliability were further examined. Discussion: The results revealed that TRI is useable in the Turkish sample. The four-factor structure of the scale needed to be reconsidered in Turkish culture. (Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry 2020; 21(Suppl.2):63-70)

Üçgen İlişki Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Üniversite öğrencileri için geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması

Amaç: Üçgen İlişki Ölçeği (ÜİÖ) aile üçgenleşmesinin farklı konfigürasyonlarının değerlendirilebilmesini sağlamaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, ÜİÖ’nün psikometrik özelliklerinin Türk örnekleminde test edilerek köken aile değişkenlerine ilişkin ölçme araçlarının araştırmacılar ve ruh sağlığı uzmanları tarafından kullanımlarını yaygınlaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Çalışmada 387 üniversite öğrencisine ÜİÖ ve uyum geçerliliği analizlerinde geçerli olmak üzere Aile Sisteminde Kişisel Otorite Ölçeği-Genç Yetişkin Sürümünün Çekirdek Ailede Üçgenleşme (INTRI) alt boyutu ile MarloweCrowne Sosyal Beğenilirlik Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Birinci ve ikinci derece doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri (DFA) dört faktörlü yapı için yeterli uyum iyiliği değerleri ortaya koymuştur. Günah keçisi alt boyutu ile INTRI arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunamamış ve boyutun ikinci düzey DFA’da modele anlamlı olarak yüklenmediği görülmüştür. Ölçek, cinsiyete bağlı ölçme değişmezliğini sağlamış olup Cronbach alfa ve omega güvenilirlik değerleri ile test tekrar test güvenilirliği bulguları incelendiğinde yüksek düzeyde güvenilirliğe sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Tartışma: Sonuçlar ÜİÖ'nün Türk örnekleminde kullanılabileceğini ortaya koymuştur. Tartışmalı günah keçisi bulguları nedeni ile ölçeğin dört faktörlü yapısının kristalize olabilmesi için Türk kültüründe daha fazla çalışma gerekmektedir. (Anadolu Psikiyatri Derg 2020; 21(Suppl.2):63-70)

PDF

___

1. Kerr ME, Bowen M. Family Evaluation: An Approach Based on Bowen Theory. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1988.

2. Bowen M. Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Jason Aronson, 1978.

3. Bell LG, Bell DC, Nakata YA. Triangulation and adolescent development in the USA and Japan. Fam Process 2001; 40:173-186.

4. Buehler C, Welsh DP. A process model of adolescents’ triangulation into parents’ marital conflict: The role of emotional reactivity. J Fam Psychol 2009; 23:167-180.

5. Fosco GM, Grych JH. Emotional, cognitive, and family systems mediators of children’s adjustment to interparental conflict. J Fam Psychol 2008; 22:843-854.

6. Józefik B. Intergenerational family patterns in eating disorders families and schizophrenic families. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy 2001; 3:27-39.

7. Wang L, Crane DR. The relationship between marital satisfaction, marital stability, nuclear family triangulation, and childhood depression. Am J Fam Ther 2001; 29:337-347.

8. Bresin RC, Murdock NL, Marszalek JM, Stapley, LA. The triangular relationship inventory: Development and validation. Couple Family Psychol 2017; 6:287-310.

9. Erdem G, Safi OA. The cultural lens approach to Bowen family systems theory: Contributions of family change theory. Journal of Family Theory and Review 2018; 10:469-483

10. Bray JH, Harvey, DM. Intimacy and individuation in young adults: Development of the young adult version of the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire. J Fam Psychol 1992; 6:152-163.

11. Kurşuncu MA. Risk Involvement in Emerging Adulthood: The Role of Personal Authority, Intergenerational Intimacy and Family Triangulation. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ankara, Middle East Technical University, Institute of Educational Sciences, 2016.

12. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol 1960; 24:349-354.

13. Ural T, Özbirecikli M. Is ethical judgement influenced by social desirability in responding? An analysis on Turkish accountants. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2006; 15:393-410.

14. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992; 5:194- 197.

15. IBM Corp. Released. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp., 2013.

16. JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software], 2019.

17. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. Sixth ed., Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2013.

18. Hoelter JW. The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research 1983; 11:325-344.

19. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Third ed., New York: Guilford Press, 2011.

20. Mardia KV. Mardia’s test of multinormality. S Kotz, NL Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, New York: Wiley, 1985.

21. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2010.

22. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 1988.

23. Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling. BG Tabachnick, LS Fidell (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics, Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, 2001, pp.653-771.

24. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Third ed., New York: Routledge, 2010.

25. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/WINDOWS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1994.

26. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999;6:1-55.

27. Milfont TL, Fischer R. Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res 2010; 3:111-121.

28. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1988.

29. Platt L, Skowron E. The Family Genogram Interview: Reliability and validity of a new interview protocol. T Fam J 2013; 21:35-45.

30. Kurşuncu MA, Baştemur S. Family triangulation experiences of Turkish young women. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019; 14:312-329.

31. Mroczek DK. The analysis of longitudinal data in personality research. RW Robins, C Fraley, RF Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 2009, pp.543-556.