Stresle Çift Olarak Baş Etme Envanteri’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması

Bu çalışmanın amacı Bodenmann (2008) tarafından geliştirilen Stresle Çift Olarak Baş Etme Envanteri’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasıdır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda yapılan bu araştırma, Adana ilinde özel kuruluş ve devlet kurumlarında çalışan 720 evli ve çocuk sahibi bireyden toplanan veriler ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Uyarlama kapsamında önce çeviri çalışmaları tamamlanmış olup, ardından envanterin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenilirliği incelenmiştir. Envanterin yapı geçerliğini belirlemek için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış, sonuçlar (bireyin kendi baş etmesine dair algı için X2/sd=3.76, RMSEA=.06, CFI=.94, GFI=.95, SRMR=.04; eşin baş etmesine dair algı için X2/sd=4.50, RMSEA=.06, CFI=.95, GFI=.94, SRMR=.04; ortak baş etmeye dair algı için X2/sd=4, RMSEA=.01, CFI=1, GFI=.99, SRMR=.01) üç boyutun da kabul edilebilir uyum düzeyine sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. Envanterin güvenilirliğini belirlemek için yapılan iç tutarlılık analizinde Cronbach alpha değerleri alt boyutlar bazında .63 ile .87 arasında, yarı test değerleri ise .63 ile .85 arasında değişmektedir. Yapılan geçerlik güvenirlik analizi sonuçları envanterin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Stresle çift olarak baş etme, stresle baş etme, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Adaptation of Dyadic Coping Inventory Into Tur-kish

The aim of this study is the adaptation of Dyadic Coping Inventory developed by Bodenmann (2008). This study was carried out with the data collected from 720 married people who have children, work in private institutions and state institutions in Adana city. In the context of adaptation, the translation studies were completed and the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the inventory were examined. In order to determine the validity of the inventory confirmatory factor analysis was performed, results (for the perception of self dyadic coping x2/sd=3.76, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .94, GFI = .95, SRMR = .04; for the perception of the partner’s dyadic coping x2/sd=4.50, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .95, GFI = .94, SRMR = .04, for the perception of common dyadic coping x2/sd= 4, RMSEA = .01, CFI = 1, GFI = .99, SRMR = .01) have shown that they have acceptable level of fit for three dimensions. In order to determine the reliability of the inventory, The Cronbach alpha values of the inventory vary between .63 and .87 and semi test values for .63 to .85. The validity and reliability analysis results show that the inventory can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords:

Dyadic coping with stres, coping with stres, validity, reliability,

PDF

___

Aydoğan, D. ve Özbay, Y. (2015). Çiftlerde ilişkisel yılmazlık ve ilişkisel profesyonel yardım arama: İkili (dyadic) analiz. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(44), 109-121.
Barbarin, O. A., Hughes, D., ve Chesler, M. A. (1985). Stress, coping, and marital functioning among parents of children with cancer. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(2), 473-480.
Bayram, N. (2013). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş AMOS uygulamaları (2. baskı). İstanbul: Ezgi Kitabevi.
Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping-a systematic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137-140.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In (T.Revenson, K. Kayser and G.Bodenmann Ed.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (p.33-50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadic coping and the significance of this concept for prevention and therapy. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitpsychologie, 16(3), 108-111.
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T. ve Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 551-569.
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Bradbury, T. N., Gmelch, S. ve Ledermann, T. (2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 408-424.
Breitenstein, C. J., Milek, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Davila, J., ve Bodenmann, G. (2017). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction in late adolescent couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(5), 770–790.
Byrne, B. (2010). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic concept, applications and programming. New York: Routledge.
Coyne, J. C. and Racioppo, M. W. (2000). Never the Twain shall meet? Closing the gap between coping research and clinical intervention research. American psychologist, 55(6), 655.
Coyne, J. C. ve Smith, D. A. (1991). Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: a contextual perspective on wives' distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 404.
Çağ, P. ve Yıldırım, İ. (2013). Evlilik doyumunu yordayan ilişkisel ve kişisel değişkenler. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(39), 13-23.
Çelik, E. H. ve Yılmaz, V. (2013). LISREL 9.1 İle Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi, Temel kavramlar- uygulamalar-programlama (2. Baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Evans, S. E., Steel, A. L., Watkins, L. E. ve DiLillo, D. (2014). Childhood exposure to family violence and adult trauma symptoms: The importance of social support from a spouse. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6(5), 527.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J. ve DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(3), 571.
Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 26(2), 136-153.
Hilpert, P., Bodenmann, G., Nussbeck, F. W. ve Bradbury, T. N. (2013). Predicting relationship satisfaction in distressed and non-distressed couples based on a stratified sample: a matter of conflict, positivity, or support?. Family Science, 4(1), 110-120.
Hu, L. T. 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.
Kabasakal, Z., ve Soylu, Y. (2016). Evli bireylerin evlilik doyumunun cinsiyet ve eş desteğine göre incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 208-214.
Karademas, E. C. ve Roussi, P. (2017). Financial strain, dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, and psychological distress: A dyadic mediation study in Greek couples. Stress and Health, 33(5), 508-517.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). Gender and marital satisfaction early in marriage: A growth curve approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 68–74.
Kurt, İ. E., (2018). Stresle çift olarak baş etme envanterinin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. H. Akça, M. Erarslan, M. F. Sansar (Ed.), II. Uluslararası multidisipliner çalışmaları kongresi bildiri özet kitapçığı içinde (s. 141-142), Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı.
Landis, M., Bodenmann, G., Bradbury, T. N., Brandstätter, V., Peter-Wight, M., Backes, S. ve Nussbeck, F. W. (2014). Commitment and dyadic coping in long-term relationships. GeroPsych, 27, 139-149.
Landis, M., Peter-Wight, M., Martin, M. ve Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-term marriage. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(1), 39-47.
Lawrence, E., Bunde, M., Barry, R. A., Brock, R. L., Sullivan, K. T., Pasch, L. A. ve Adams, E. E. (2008). Partner support and marital satisfaction: Support amount, adequacy, provision, and solicitation. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 445-463.
Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J. , Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology.
Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Rudaz, M. ve Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations, 59(2), 195-206.
Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M. F., Caron, A., ve Fitzpatrick, J. (2014). Validation of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(3), 215-225.
O’Brien, T. B. ve DeLongis, A. (1997). Coping with chronic stres: An interpersonal perspective. (B. H. Gottlieb Ed.), Coping with Chronic Stress (pp. 161–190), New York: Plenum Press.
Özmen, S. K. ve Özmen, A. (2012). Anne baba stres ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Eğitim ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 41(196), 20-35.
Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., ve Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic coping in the US: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Current Psychology, 35(4), 570-582.
Revenson, T. A. (1994). Social support and marital coping with chronic illness. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16(2), 122-130.
Rusu, P. P., Hilpert, P., Beach, S. R., Turliuc, M. N. ve Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping mediates the association of sanctification with marital satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), 843-849.
Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Ullman, J.B. (2007). Structural equation modeling. In Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). In Using multivariate statistics (p. 653-771). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Xu, F., Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Li, Q. ve Bodenmann, G. (2016). Validation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory with Chinese couples: Factorial structure, measurement ınvariance, and construct validity. Psychological assessment 28(8), 127-140.
Zeidner, M., Kloda, I. ve Matthews, G. (2013). Does dyadic coping mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and marital quality?. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 795-805.