SEYİRCİ TABANLI SPORDA MARKA DEĞER ÖLÇEĞİ: TÜRKÇE UYARLAMA, GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Bu çalışma taraftarların sporda marka değer algılarını belirlemek için kullanılan “Spectator-Based Brand Equity in Professional Soccer” ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizi amacıyla planmış ve yürütülmüştür. Çalışma örneklemini ortalama 31 (18-57) yaş ve taraftarlık düzeyi 5 (3-5) olan 434 taraftar oluşturmuştur. Seyirci Tabanlı Sporda Marka Değer Ölçeği (STSMDÖ)’nün dil geçerliliği için Türkçe ve İngilizceyi iyi bilen 2 spor bilimleri ve 2 İngilizce uzmanı ölçeği Türkçe’ye çevirmiştir. Geri çevirisi ölçeği geliştiren yazara gönderilmiş ve İngilizce versiyonunun onayı alınmıştır. Dil geçerliliği için iki dile hâkim 20 uzmana ölçeğin önce Türkçe, sonra İngilizce versiyonu bir hafta arayla uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin son halinin kapsam geçerliliği 10 uzman tarafından değerlendikten sonra uygun görülen 11 faktörlü 33 maddelik ölçek pilot güvenirlik analizi için 434 taraftara uygulanmıştır. Geçerlik analizi için uygulanan açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonrasında 11 faktörlü 29 maddeli ölçeğe ait model uyum değerleri kabul edilebilir düzeyde bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin güvenirliğini belirlemek için 50 taraftarlara iki hafta arayla test tekrar test uygulanmış ve iki ölçüm arasında r=0,751 düzeyinde yüksek derecede pozitif korelasyon saptanmıştır (p=0,001). Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısı (Croanbach α) 0,893 idi. Sonuç olarak STSMDÖ Türk futbol taraftarı için uygulanabilir, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Marka değer, spor, taraftar, geçerlik, güvenirlik, adaptasyon

SPECTATOR-BASED BRAND EQUITY SCALE IN SPORTS: TURKİSH ADAPTATION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

This study was planned and conducted for the Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability analysis of the "Spectator-Based Brand Equity in Professional Soccer" scale, which is used to measure the brand equity perceptions of the fans in sports. The study sample consisted of 434 supporters with an average age of 31 (18-57) and a level of support of 5 (3-5). For the language validity of the Spectator-Based Brand Equity Scale in Sports (SBBEsS), 2 sport science and 2 English experts, who were fluent in Turkish and English, translated the scale into Turkish. The back translation was sent to the author who developed the scale. Approval of the English version was obtained. For language validity, first the Turkish and then the English versions of the scale were administered to 20 bilingual experts, one week apart. After the content validity of the final version of the scale was evaluated by 10 experts, the 33-item scale with 11 factors was applied to 434 fans for pilot reliability analysis. After the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis applied for the validity analysis, the model fit values of the 29-item scale with 11 factors were at an acceptable level. In order to determine the reliability of the scale, test-retest was applied to 50 fan with two-week intervals and a high positive correlation at the level of r=0,751 was found between the two measurements (p=0,001).The internal consistency coefficient (Croanbach α) of the scale was 0,893. As a result, SBBESS is a valid, reliable and applicable scale for Turkish football fans.

Keywords:

Brand equity, sport, fans, validity, reliability, adaptation,

PDF

___

Park W., Srinivasan V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research. 2, 271-288.
Gladden JM., Funk DC. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management. 6(1), 54-81.
Bauer HH., Stokburger-Sauer NE., Exler S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in professional sport team: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management. 22(2), 205-226.
Ross S. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management. 20(1), 22-38.
Ross S., Russell K., Bang H. (2008). An empirical assessment of spectator- based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management. 22(3), 322-337.
Aaker DA. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York, The Free Press.
Keller K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing. 57(1), 1-22.
Biscaia R., Correia A., Ross S., Rosado A., Maroco J. (2013). Spectator-based brand equity in professional soccer. Sport Marketing Quarterly. 22(1), 20-32.
Yoo B., Donthu N. (2002). Testing cross-cultural invariance of the brand equity creation process. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 11(6), 380-398.
Gladden JM., Milne GR., Sutton WA. (1998). A conceptual frame work for evaluating brand equity in Division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management. 12(1), 1-19.
McAlexander JH., Schouten JW., Koenig HF. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing. 66(1), 38-54.
Richelieu A., Pons F. (2009). If brand equity matters, where is the brand strategy? A look at Canadian hockey teams in the NHL. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing. 5(1/2), 162-182.
Underwood R., Bond E., Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity: Lessons from the sports marketplaces. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 9, 1-13.
Uhrich S., Koenigstorfer J. (2009). Effects of atmosphere at major sports events: A perspective from environmental psychology. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship. 10(4), 325-44.
Bauer HH., Sauer NE., Schmitt P. (2005). Customer-based brand equity in team sport industiry: Operationalization and impact on the economic success of sport teams. European Journal of Marketing. 39(5), 496-513.
Ross S., Walsh P., Maxwell H. (2009). The impact of team identification on ice hockey brand associations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing. 5(1/2), 196-210.
Mullin B., Hardy S., Sutton W. (2007). Sport marketing. (3th ed.). Human Kinetics. Champaign, IL, USA.
Alwin DF. (1991). Research on survey quality. Sociological Methods & Research, 20, 3-29.
Revilla MA., Saris WE., Krosnick JA. (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agree−disagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research. 43(1), 73-97.
Chen C., Lee SY., Stevenson HW. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparsions of rating scales amongst East Asian and North American students, Psychological Science. 6, 170-175.
Şeker H., Gençdoğan B. (2006). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
Davis LL. (1992). Instrument review: Gettingthe most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research. 5, 194-197.
Kartal M., Bardakçı S. (2018). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı örneklerle güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizleri. Akademisyen Yayınevi, Ankara.
Alpar R. (2020). Uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik-güvenirlik (6.baskı). Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Bland JM., Altman DG. (1997). Statistics Notes: Cronbach's Alpha. BMJ. 314(7080), 572.
Çokluk Ö., Şekercioğlu G., Büyüköztürk Ş. (2012). sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamaları, Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Fornell C., Larcker DF. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 39-50.
Netemeyer RG., Bearden WO., Sharma S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Sage Publications.
Hair JF., Black WC., Babin B., Anderson RE., Tatham RL. (2005). Multivariate data analyses (6 th ed.). Prentice Hall. New York.
Byrne BM. (2000). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bayram N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş Amos uygulamaları. Ezgi Kitapevi. Bursa.
Veneziano L., Hooper J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior. 21(1), 67-70.
Kerr A., Gladden JM. (2008). Extending the understanding of professional team brand equity to the global marketplace. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing. 3(1/2), 58-77.