Anlaşmazlığı Hoşgörme Ölçeğinin (AHÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Anlaşmazlığı Hoşgörme Ölçeğini (Teven, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1998) Türkçeye uyarlamaktır. Sakarya ve Marmara Üniversitesi öğrencilerinden elde edilen verilerle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmaya 115 kız ve 113 erkek olmak üzere toplam 228 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde tek boyutlu modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (?2= 167.07, sd=87, RMSEA= .064, RMR= .15, SRMR= .071, GFI= .91, AGFI= .88). Ölçeğin Cronbach’s alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı .67 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca ölçeğin düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonlarının .05 ile .51 arasında sıralandığı ve %27’lik alt-üst grupların ortalamaları arasındaki tüm farkların anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar, Anlaşmazlığı Hoşgörme Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunun araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak değerlendirilebileceğini göstermektedir.

Adaptation of the Tolerance for Disagreement Scale (TFDS) into Turkish

The aim of this research is to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Tolerance for Disagreement Scale (Teven et al., 1998). Participants were 228 undergraduate students (115 female, 113 male) from Marmara and Kocaeli Universities. Results of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that this scale yielded one factor, as original form and that the model was well fit (?2= 167.07, df= 87, RMSEA= .064, RMR= .15, SRMR= .071, GFI= .91, AGFI= .88). The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was .67. Corrected item-total correlations ranged .05 to .51, and according to t-test results differences between each item’s means of upper 27% and lower 27% points were significant. Overall findings demonstrated that Thus Tolerance for Disagreement Scale had high validity and reliability scores and that it may be used as a valid and reliable instrument in order to tolerance for disagreement.

Keywords:

Tolerance for Disagreement Scale, Validity Reliability, Confirmatory Factor Analysis,

PDF

___

Cramer, D. (2004). Effect of the Destructive Disagreement Belief on Relationship Satisfaction with a Romantic Partner or Closest Friend. Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77(1): 121-133.
Cramer, D. (2005). Effect of the Destructive Disagreement Belief on Satisfaction with One’s Closest Friend. Journal of Psychology, 139(1): 57-66.
Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 Reference Guide. Lincolnwood IL: Scientific Software International.
Langlotz, A., Locher, M.A. (2012). Ways of Communicating Emotional Stance in Online Disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 44: 1591-1606.
McCroskey, J.C., Wheeless, L.R. (1976). An Introduction to Human Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Effect of Sample Size. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 391-410.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D. (1988). A New More Powerful Approach to Multitrait‐Multimethod Analyses: Application of Second‐Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 107‐117.
Martinson, D.L. (2005). Building a Tolerance for Disagreement an Important Goal in Social Studies Instruction. College Media Review, 78(3): 118- 124.
Mizukami, E., Morimoto, I., Suzuki, K., Otsuka, H., Kashioka, H., Nakamura, S.S. (2009). Two Types of Disagreement in Group Decisions of Japanese Undergraduates. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(3): 279-298.
Teven, J.J., McCroskey, J.C., Richmond, V.P. (1998). Measuring Tolerance for Disagreement. Communication Research Reports, 15: 209-217.