Ekolojik Kimlik Ölçeğinin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Bu araştırmada Walton ve Jones (2017) tarafından geliştirilen Ekolojik Kimlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma 460 üniversite öğrencisinden oluşan bir çalışma grubu üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında katılımcıların EKÖ’nün Türkçe ve İngilizce formuna verdikleri cevaplar arasında pozitif yönlü, güçlü ve anlamlı korelasyonlar saptanmıştır. EKÖ’nün Türkçe formunun yapı geçerliği açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) uygulanarak test edilmiştir. AFA’da toplam varyansın %50.49’unu açıklayan ve ölçeğin orijinal formuyla paralellik gösteren üç faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiş olup DFA’da rapor edilen uyum indeksleri bu yapıyı doğrulamıştır. Faktör analizi sonucunda ortaya çıkan boyutlar, ölçeğin orijinal formunda olduğu gibi özdeşlik, farklılaşma ve merkezilik olarak adlandırılmıştır. Güvenirlik çalışması kapsamında, EKÖ’nün geneli için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı .78 olarak bulunmuştur. Madde analizinde düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonlarının EKÖ’deki maddelerin tümü için .30 alt sınırının üzerinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgular, EKÖ’nün Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir ölçümler ürettiğini ve üniversite öğrencilerinin ekolojik kimliklerini ölçmek için kullanılabileceğini yansıtmaktadır.

The Turkish Adaptation of the Ecological Identity Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

In this research, it was aimed to adapt the Ecological Identity Scale (EIS) developed by Walton and Jones (2017) to Turkish. The research was conducted on a study group who consisted of 460 university students. In the linguistic equivalence study, it was determined that there were positive, strong and significant correlations between participants’ responses to the English and Turkish forms of the EIS. The construct validity of the EIS’ Turkish form was tested by means of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). According to results of EFA, a three-factor structure that explains 50.49% of the total variance and parallel to the original form of the scale was obtained. The fit indices reported in CFA were confirmed the three factor structure just mentioned. The emerging factors were called as sameness, differentiation and centrality as in the original form of the scale. Within the scope of reliability study, Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient calculated for the whole of the EIS was found to be .78. In the item analysis, it was detected that the corrected item total correlations were over the .30 lower bound for all items in the EIS. These results argue that the Turkish form of the EIS produces valid and reliable measurements and it can be used to measure the ecological identities of the university students.

PDF

___

Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş AMOS uygulamaları. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
Bragg, E.A. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(2), 93-108 https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0008
Bryant, F.B., King, S.P., & Smart, C.M. (2007). Multivariate statistical strategies for construct validation in positive psychology. In A.D. Ong & M.H.M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 61-82). New York: Oxford University Press.
Burke, P.J., & Tully, J. (1977). The measurement of role/identity. Social Forces, 55(4), 881-897. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/55.4.881
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Clayton, S.D. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and operational definition. In S.D. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dimitrov, D.M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA American Counseling Association.
Dunlap, R.E., & McCright, A.M. (2008). Social movement identity: Validating a measure of identification with the environmental movement. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1045-1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00573.x
Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
Gardner, G.T., & Stern, P.C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kals, E. Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
Kılıç, S. ve Tok, N. (2013). Çevrecilikte yeni bir kimlik: Ekolojizm. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 8(2), 223-250.
Kiesling, F., & Manning, C.M. (2010). How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 315-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.004
Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Locker, D., Jokovic, A., & Allison, P. (2013). Direction of wording and responses to items in oral health-related quality of life questionnaires for children and their parents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 35(4), 255-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00320.x
Meloni, F., & Gana, K. (2001). Assessment wording effects in the Italian version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 8(4), 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.294
Meydan, C.H. ve Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
Meyers, L.S, Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. London: SAGE Publications.
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roszkowski, M.J., & Soven, M. (2010). Shifting gears: Consequences of including two negatively worded items in the middle of a positively worded questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 113-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618344
Schultz, P.W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck & P. Wesley Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4
Schultz, P.W., & Oskamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 375-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787078
Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E.S. ve Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
Sönmez, V. ve Alacapınar, F.G. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde ölçme aracı hazırlama. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G.A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), 1611-1636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x
Stets, J.E., & Biga, C.F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21(4), 398-423. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9558.2003.00196.x
Stets, J.E., & Burke, P.J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, Pearson Education, Inc.
Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
Thoits, P.A., & Virshup, L.K. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities. In R. D. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 106-133). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Walton, T.N., & Jones, R.E. (2017). Ecological identity: The development and assessment of a measurement scale. Environment and Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517710310
Weigert, A.J. (1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment: Refocusing our eyesight. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
Wilson, R.A. (1996). Starting early environmental education during the early childhood years (ERIC Digest). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education (ERIC Identifier ED 402147).
Zavestoski, S. (2003). Constructing and maintaining ecological identities: The strategies of deep ecologists. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the environment (pp. 297-315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.