HÜSEYİN ÇEVİK, Özlem ÖZCAN, SÜLEYMAN MUNUSTURLAR

BOŞ ZAMAN YOLUYLA STRESLE BAŞ ETME İNANCI ÖLÇEĞİ ve BOŞ ZAMAN YOLUYLA STRESLE BAŞ ETME STRATEJİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN FAKTÖR YAPISININ TÜRKİYE ÖRNEKLEMİNE YÖNELİK SINANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Boş zaman aktivitelerinin kişilerin stresle baş etmelerine yardımcı olduğunu savunan birçok görüş olmasına karşın, boş zamanın stresle baş etmedeki rolünü ortaya koyan teori ve yaklaşımların sayısı oldukça azdır. Bu araştırmada boş zaman aracılığıyla stresle baş etmeye yönelik hiyerarşik bir yaklaşım temel alınarak geliştirilen (Iwasaki ve Mannell, 2000), Boş Zaman Yoluyla Stresle Baş Etme İnanış Ölçeği (BZSBİÖ) ve Boş Zaman Yoluyla Stresle Baş Etme Strateji Ölçeği (BZSBSÖ)’nin Türkiye örnekleminde geçerliği ve güvenirliği ile ilişkili özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 332 katılımcıdan oluşmaktadır. Ölçeklerin yapı geçerliliği için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) kullanılmıştır. Güvenirlik için ise test tekrar test, iç tutarlılık ve madde toplam korelasyon analizlerinden yararlanılmıştır. DFA sonuçlarına göre, orijinal yapısı 6 faktörlü 30 maddeli olan BZSBİÖ’den 5 madde düşük faktör yüküne sahip olduğu için çıkartılmıştır. Elde edilen 6 faktörlü 25 maddeli modelin uyum indekslerinin iyi ve kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Orijinal yapısı 3 faktör ve 18 maddeden oluşan BZSBSÖ’den ise 3 madde düşük faktör yükünden dolayı çıkartılmıştır. Elde edilen modelin uyum indekslerinin referans değerlerinin üzerinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucu BZSBİÖ’nün 6 faktörlü 24 maddeli, BZSBSÖ’nün ise 3 faktör 15 maddeli yapısıyla, Türk toplumundaki insanların boş zamanın stresle baş etme fonksiyonuna ilişkin inançlarını ve stratejilerini ölçmeye yönelik psikometrik nitelikleri sağlayan bir ölçme aracı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

EXAMINING FACTOR STRUCTURE OF LEISURE STRESS COPING BELIEFS SCALE AND LEISURE STRESS COPING STRATEGIES SCALE FOR TURKEY SAMPLE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Although there are many views that leisure activities help people cope with stress, the number of theories and approaches that reveal the role of leisure in coping with stress is very low. In this study, adaptation of Leisure Stress Coping Beliefs Scale (LSCBS) and Leisure Stress Coping Strategies Scale (LSCSS) developed on the basis of a hierarchical approach (Iwasaki and Mannell, 2000) to Turkish language and culture and evaluation of validity and reliability and associated features are aimed. The sample of the research consists of 332 participants who were selected by convenience sampling method. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been used for structural validity of the scales. As for reliability, test- retest, internal consistency, total item correlation analyses have been used. According to CFA results, 5 items have been removed from LSCBS whose original structure has 6 factors and 30 items because they had low factor load. It has been observed that the fit indices of the model which is 6-factor 25-item were good and acceptable. 3 items have been removed LSCSS whose original structure has 3 factors and 18 items because they had low factor load . It has been observed that the compliance indexes of the model were higher than reference values. The result of the research reveals that 6-factor and 24-item LSCBS and 3-factor and 15-item LSCSS are assessment instruments providing psychometric qualities to evaluate leisure stress coping beliefs and strategies of Turkish people.

PDF

___

Aldwin CM. (2014): Stress, Coping, and Development : An Integrative Perspective. Guilford Publications, New York.
Bedir F, Bedir D, Erhan SE, Şen İ. (2016): Boş Zaman Stres ile Başa Çıkma İnanış Ölçeğinin Türkçe Geçerlik Güvenirlik Çalışması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 18 (4), 9-16.
Brown TA. (2006): Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Browne MW, Cudeck R. (1993): Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Caltabiano ML. (1994): Measuring the similarity among leisure activities based on a perceived stressreduction benefit. Leisure Studies ,13, 17-31.
Farfano MV, Ramirez MTG. (2014): Estructura factorial del inventario leisure coping belief scale en una muestra Mexicana, LIBERABIT: Lima (Perú) 20(2): 261-266.
Folkman S, Moskowitz, JT. (2000): Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55: 647–654.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. (1981): Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Forza C, Filippini R. (1998): TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: a causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1-20.
Greenspoon PJ, Saklofske DH. (1998): Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965-971.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson, RE. (2014): Multivariate data analysis (Pearson new internat. ed). Harlow: Pearson.
Hambleton RK, Meranda PF, Spielberger CD. (2005): Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assesment. London: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Hambleton RK, Patsula L. (1999): Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, August, 1-13.
Hatcher L. (1994): A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: The SAS Institute.
Holahan CJ, Moos RH. (1991): Life stressors, personal and social resources, and depression: A 4-year structural model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 337-348.
Iwasaki Y. (2001): Contributions of leisure to coping with daily hassles in university students’ lives. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 33(2), 128–141.
Iwasaki Y. (2006): Counteracting stress through leisure coping: A prospective health study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 11(2): 209 – 220.
Iwasaki Y. (2003): Examining rival models of leisure coping mechanisms. Leisure Sciences, 25(2-3), 183-206.
Iwasaki Y, MacKay K, Mactavish J. (2005): Gender-based analogues of coping with stress among professional managers: Leisure coping and non-leisure coping, Journal of Leisure Research; 37, (1); 1-28.
Iwasaki Y, MacTavish J, MacKay K. (2005):Building on strengths and resilience: Leisure as a stress survival strategy. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 33, 81–100.
Iwasaki Y, Mackay KJ, Mactavish JB, Ristock J, Bartlett J. ( 2006): Voices from the margins: stress, active living, and leisure as a contributor to coping with stress. Leisure Sciences; 28:163–180.
Iwasaki Y, Mannell RC. (2000): Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress coping. Leisure Sciences , 22, 163-18.
Iwasaki Y, Mannell RC, Smale BJA, Butcher J. (2005): Contributions of leisure participation in predicting stress coping and health among police and emergency response services workers. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 79–99.
Joudrey AD, Wallance JE, (2009): Leisure as a coping resource: A test of the job demand-control-support model, Human Relations, 62(2): 195–217.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. (1993): LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
Kimball A, Freysinger VJ. (2003): Leisure, stress, and coping: The sport participation of collegiate student-athletes, Leisure Sciences, 25:2-3, 115-141
Kline RB. (2011): Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Third Edition). New York: Guilford Press.
Lance CE, Vandenberg, RJ. (2002): Confirmatory factor analysis. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Organizational frontiers series, 14. Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 221-254). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lazarus RS, Folkman S. (1984): Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
Lawshe CH. (1975): A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
Marsh HW, Hau KT, Artelt C, Baumert J, Peschar JL. (2006): OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
Matud MP. (2004): Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1401–1415
Meydan CH, Şeşen H. (2015): Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları (2. Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
Monroe SM. (2008): Modern approaches to conceptualizing and measuring human life stress. The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 33-52.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR. (1994): Psychometric Theory, 3d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Qian XL, Yarnal C. (2011): The role of playfulness in the leisure stress-coping process among emerging adults: an SEM analysis, Leisure/Loisir, 35:2, 191-209.
Patterson I, Coleman D. (1996): The ımpact of stress on different leisure dimensions. Journal Of Applied Recreation Research , 21, 243-263.
Seçer İ. (2015): Psikolojik Test Geliştirme ve Uyarlama Süreci. SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Shields M. (2003): Stress, health and the benefit of social support. Health Reports , Catalogue No. 82-003-XPE, Volume 15(1). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Yurdagül H. (2005): Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışmalarında Kapsam Geçerliği için Kapsam Geçerlik İndekslerinin Kullanılması. 14. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Denizli.
Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA. (2012): Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197-210.
Wong N, Rindfleisch A, Burroughs JE. (2003): Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 72–91.