Akıllı Telefondan Düşünümsel Bağ Koparma Ölçeği: Uyarlama, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Bu çalışma Matthes, Karsay, Hirsch, Stevic ve Schmuck (2022) tarafından geliştirilen ve Reflective Smartphone Disengagement Scale olarak adlandırılan ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlanmasını, uyarlanan ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini sınamayı amaçlamıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışmada öncelikle çeviri ve geri çeviri süreçleri yürütülmüş olup uzman paneli gerçekleştirilmiştir. Devamında 18-40 yaş aralığında yer alan kişilerden oluşan üç araştırma kümesinden farklı zamanlarda veri toplanarak açımlayıcı faktör analizi (N=354), doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri (N=413) ve test-tekrar test güvenirliğine (N=55) yönelik işlemler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda 6 madde ve tek faktörden oluşan Likert tipi orijinal ölçek, 4 madde ve tek faktör olacak şekilde Türkçeye uyarlanmış ve Akıllı Telefondan Düşünümsel Bağ Koparma Ölçeği şeklinde adlandırılarak alanyazına kazandırılmıştır. Ölçeğin açıkladığı toplam varyans %55.941 iken ölçek maddelerinin standardize edilmiş faktör yükleri .517 ile .798 arasında değişmektedir. Ayrıca ölçekteki en düşük R2 değeri .267, ölçeğin Cronbach’s alpha katsayısı (α) .737’dir. Yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ise ölçeğin uyum indekslerinin tamamının oldukça “iyi değerlere” sahip olduğu görülmüştür (CFI=.994, TLI=.982, NNFI=.982, IFI=.994, RMSEA=.050, SRMR=.020, GFI=.995). Tüm bu bulgular ve çalışma içerisinde gerçekleştirilen diğer analizler sonucunda Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu araştırmacılar tarafından ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Ölçek Uyarlama, Akıllı Telefon Kullanımı, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Düşünümsel Bağ Koparma

Reflective Smartphone Disengagement Scale: Scale Adaptation, Validity and Reliability

This study aims to adapt Matthes, Karsay, Hirsch, Stevic and Schmuck’s (2022), Reflective Smartphone Disengagement (RSD) Scale to Turkish, and test the validity and reliability of the adapted version. The concept of RSD, developed in the original article, is defined as individuals’ deliberate efforts to control and restrict smartphone use. The unidimensional RSD scale aims to measure this concept. In the first step of our scale adaptation study, we translated and back-translated the scale items and conducted an expert panel. Subsequently, we collected data at different times from three sample groups consisting of people aged 18-40, and conducted exploratory factor analysis (N=354), confirmatory factor analysis, validity and reliability analysis (N=413), and test-retest reliability (N=55). Based on the analysis, we adapted the original unidimensional, 6-item Likert-type RSD scale to Turkish, as a 4-item unidimensional scale. The total variance explained is 55.941% and the standardized factor loadings vary between .517 and .798. The lowest R2 value of the scale is .267 and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) of the scale is .737. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis show that the fit indices also have good fit (CFI=.994, TLI=.982, NNFI=.982, IFI=.994, RMSEA=.050, SRMR=.020, GFI=.995). All the findings provide support for the validity and reliability of the adapted version of the RSD scale.

Keywords:

Scale Adaptation, Use of Smartphone, Validity, Reliability, Reflective Disengagement,

PDF

___

Andrews, S., Ellis, D. A., Shaw, H., ve Piwek, L. (2015). Beyond self-report: Tools to compare estimated and real-world smartphone use. Plos One, 10, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139004
Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Self-Regulation. R. F. Baumeister ve K. D. Vohs (Editörler), Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 2) (s. 841-844) içinde. Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M. ve Vohs, K. D. (2018). The strength model of self-regulation: Conclusions from the second decade of willpower research. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 13(2), 141-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916177169
Berkman, E. T., Hutcherson, C. A., Livingston, J. L., Kahn, L. E. ve Inzlicht, M. (2017). Self-control as value-based choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 26(5), 422-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417704394
Billieux, J. (2012). Problematic use of the mobile phone: A literature review and a pathways model. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8(4), 299-307. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340012803520522
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
Carver, C. S. ve Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Coster, W. J., ve Mancini, M. C. (2015). Recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Revista de Terapia Ocupacional da Universidade de São Paulo, 26(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-6149.v26i1p50-57
Deutsch, R. ve Strack, F. (2020). Changing behavior using the reflective-impulsive model. M. S. Hagger, L. D. Cameron, K. Hamilton, N. Hankonen ve T. Lintunen (Editörler), The Handbook of behavior change (s. 164-177) içinde. Cambridge University Press.
Duckworth, A. L., White, R. E., Matteucci, A. J., Shearer, A. ve Gross, J. J. (2016). A stitch in time: Strategic self-control in high school and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000062
Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin, B. G., Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Hoffman, W., Friese, M. ve Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems persepective. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 4(2), 162-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x
Hu, L. ve Bentler, P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Inzlicht, M., Werner, K. M., Briskin, J. L. ve Roberts, B. W. (2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 319-345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-061020-105721
Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J. ve Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093830
Kartal, M. ve Bardakçı, S. (2018). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı örneklerle güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik analizleri. Akademisyen Kitabevi.
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., ve Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advences in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80008-9
Kwon, M., Kim, D-J., Cho, H. ve Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone addiction scale: Development and validation of a short version for adolescents. Plos One, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083558
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4 (1), 84-99.
Matthes, J., Karsay, K., Hirsch, M., Stevic, A. ve Schmuck, D. (2022). Reflective smartphone disengagement: Conceptualization, measurement, and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107078
McClelland, M., Geldhof, J., Cameron, C. E. ve Wanless, S. B. (2015). Development and self-regulation. Overton, W. F. ve Molenaar, P. C. M. (Editörler) Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Volume-1 (s. 1-43) içinde. Wiley.
McClelland, M., Geldhof, J., Morrison, F., Gestsdóttir, S., Cameron, C., Bowers, E., Duckworth, A., Little, T. ve Grammer, J. (2018). Self-regulation. N. Halfon, C. B. Forrest, R. M. Lerner ve E. M. Faustman. (Editörler) Handbook of life course health development (s. 275-298) içinde. Springer.
Noyan, C. O., Darçin, A. E., Nurmedov, S., Yilmaz, O. ve Dilbaz, N. (2015). Akıllı telefon bağımlılığı ölçeğinin kısa formunun üniversite öğrencilerinde Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry/Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 16, 73-81. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.176101 Nunnally, J. C. ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Özdamar, K. (2017). Ölçek ve test geliştirme, yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: IBM SPSS AMOS ve MINITAB uygulamalı. Nisan Kitabevi
Park, W. K. (2005). Mobile phone addiction. R. Ling ve P. E. Pedersen (Editörler) Mobile communications (s. 253-272) içinde. Springer.
Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 6-17.
Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30 (4), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v30i4.168
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M. ve Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed?. Developmental Psychology. 50(5). 1315-1330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031109
Rozencwajg, P. ve Corroyer, D. (2005). Cognitive processes in the reflective-impulsive cognitive style. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(4), 451-463. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.4.451-466
Smetaniuk, P. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and prediction of problematic cell phone use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.004
Soror, A. A., Hammer, B. I., Steelman, Z. R., Davis, F. D., ve Limayem, M. M. (2015). Good habits gone bad: Explaining negative consequences associated with the use of mobile phones from a dual‐systems perspective. Information Systems Journal, 25(4), 403-427 https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12065
Strack, F. ve Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220-247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
Şeker, H. ve Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme. Nobel Yayınevi.
Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Inc.
Turel, O. ve Bechara, A. (2016). A triadic reflective-impulsive-interoceptive awareness model of general and impulsive information system use: Behavioral tests of neuro-cognitive theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(601), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00601
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. (2021). Digital wellbeing as a dynamic construct. Communication Theory, 31(4), 932-955. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa024
Vohs, K. D. ve Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. Vohs, K. D. ve Baumeister, R. F. (Editörler) Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (s. 1-9) içinde. The Guilford Press
Whiteside, S. P., ve Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a strcutural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669-689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7