Durumsal güdülenme ölçeği'nin (DGÖ) beden eğitimi ders ortamı için geçerlik ve güvenirliği

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Durumsal Güdülenme Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenirliğini beden eğitimi ders ortamı için sınamaktır. Örneklem, yaşları 12 ile 15 arasında değişen 154 erkek (Art.Ort.±S$s_{yas}$= 13.37 ±0.88) ve 137 kız (Art.Ort.±S$s_{yas}$= 13.39 ±0.77) toplam 291(Art.Ort.±S$s_{yas}$= 13.38 ±0.83) ilköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Beden eğitimi ders ortamında Durumsal Güdülenme Ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini değerlendirmek için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve Cronbach alpha katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğine ilişkin bulgular, dört faktör modelinin iyi uyum indeks değerlerine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir (χ2/sd= 2.62, RMSEA= 0.06, NFI= 0.94, NNFI= 0.96, CFI= 0.97, GFI= 0.93 ve AGFI= 0.89). Ölçeğe ait iç tutarlık katsayıları ise içsel güdülenme için 0.71, özdeşimle düzenleme için 0.72, dışsal düzenleme için 0.79 ve güdülenmeme için 0.78 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar, Durumsal Güdülenme Ölçeğinin beden eğitimi ders ortamlarında öğrencilerin durumsal güdülenme düzeylerini belirlemek için kullanılabilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Validity and reliability of situational motivation scale for physical education class environment

The aim of this study was to test reliability and validity of Situational Motivation Scale for physical education class environment. Participants were 291 secondary-school students (M±S$D_{age}$= 13.38 ±0.83) who are 154 boys (M±S$D_{age}$= 13.37 ±0.88) and 137 girls (M± S$D_{age}$= 13.39 ±0.77) aged between 12 to 15 years. Confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach Alpha coefficients was used to confirm its validity and reliability in physical education class environment. Findings regarding the construct validity of the scale demonstrated that four-factor model showed acceptable to good fit to the data (χ2/sd= 2.62, RMSEA= 0.06, NFI= 0.94, NNFI= 0.96, CFI= 0.97, GFI= 0.93 and AGFI= 0.89). The Cronbachs alpha coefficients were 0.71 for intrinsic motivation, 0.72 for identified regulation, 0.79 for external regulation, and 0.78 for amotivation. Results showed that the SIMS can be used to determine secondary school students situational motivational levels in physical education class environment.

PDF

___

1. Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Spray, C. M. & Biddle, S. J. H. Achievement goal profiles in school physical education: Differences in self-determination, sport ability beliefs, and physical activity. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 72, 433 445,2002.
2. Yli-Piipari, S., Watt, A., Jaakkola, T., Liukkonen, J., & Nurmi, J. Relationships between physical education students motivational profiles, enjoyment, state anxiety, and self-reported physical activity. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 8, 327-336,2009.
3. Wagner, N., & Kirch, W. Recommendations for he promotion of physical activity in children. Journal of Public Health, 14:71- 75,2006.
4. Standage, M., Treasure, D. C., Hooper,, K., & Kuczka, K. Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1): 8199,2007.
5. Standage, M., & Treasure, D. C. Relationship among achievement goal orientations and multidimensional situational motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 87103,2002.
6. Hassandra, M., Goudas M., & Chroni, S. Examining factors associated with intrinsic motivation in physical education: a qualitative approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4, 211223,2003.
7. Xiang, P., Bruene, A. & McBride, R. E. Using achievement goal theory to assess an elementary physical education running program. Journal of School Health, 74 (6): 220-225,2004.
8. Moreno Murcia, J.A., González-Cutre Coll, D., & Chillón Garzón, M. Preliminary validation in Spanish of a scale designed to measure motivation in physical education classes: The perceived locus of causality (PLOC) scale. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,12(1), 327-337,2009.
9. Horn, T. S. Advances in sport psychology. T. Horn, eds. 3rd ed.Human Kinetics, 499 p., Ohio, 2008.
10. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research and Applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
11. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60,48-58, 1987.
12. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R. Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sport: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17 (2), 35-53, 1995.
13. Mullen, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. A graded conceptualization of self-determination in the regulation of exercise behavior: Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analysis procedures. Personality & Individual Differences, 23, 745752, 1997.
14. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. M. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175-213, 2000.
15. Lonsdale, C., Sabiston, C. M., Taylor, I. M., & Ntoumanis, N. Measuring student motivation for physical education: Examining the psychometric properties of the Perceived Locus of Causality Questionnaire and the Situational Motivation Scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 12: 1-35, 2011.
16. Kazak Çetinkalp, Z., Daşdan Ada, E. N., & Dinç, Z. Durumsal güdülenme düzeyi ve başarı algısı arasındaki ilişki: takım sporları üzerinde bir çalışma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilim Dergisi, 13 (3): 305310, 2011.
17. Kazak Çetinkalp, F. Z. Sporda hür irade kuramı ve başarı hedefi kuramının değerlendirilmesi. Ege Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora tezi, 2009.
18. Kazak Çetinkalp, F. Z. Durumsal Güdülenme Ölçeği (Situational Motivation Scale- SIMS)nin Türkçe versiyonunun psikometrik özellikleri (Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of The Situational Motivation Scale SIMS). Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 2 (2):86-94, 2010.
19. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc., 2004.
20. Çapri, B., Gündüz, B., & Gökçakan, Z. Maslach Burnout Inventory- Adaptation to Turkish of Students Form: Study of Reliability and Validity. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(40):134-147, 2011.
21. Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J.C. Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society in Iowa City. May 30, 1980, 1980.
22. Bentler, P. M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin; (107), 238246, 1990.
23. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell L. S. A. Guide to statistical techniques. Using multivariate statistics. 4th edition. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, p.17-30, 2001.
24. Kline, R. B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. , 1998.
25. Marsh, H., & Hocevar, D. A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology; 73 (1), 107117, 1988.
26. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, p.1-55, 1999.
27. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online; 8(2), 23-74, 2003.
28. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: applications using SPSS and LISREL. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık; p.270-271, 2010.
29. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K. A. ve Long, J. S. (Eds.) Testing Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, p. 136162, 1993.
30. Yılmaz, V. ve H. E. Çelik Lisrel ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi ‐ I Temel Kavramlar, Uygulamalar, Programlama, PEGEM Akademi, Ankara. s.47., 2009.