Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study

ILDIRIM, Ezgi; Ziyalar, Neylan

doi:10.17986/blm.1607

Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study

Ezgi ILDIRIM ÖZCAN, (İstinye University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, İstanbul, Turkey)

Neylan ZİYALAR (İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Institute of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey)

Adli Tıp Bülteni

3 0

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 6 - 14 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17986/blm.1607 İndeks Tarihi: 30-05-2023

Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study

Öz:

Objective: This paper aims to adapt Gudjonsson suggestibility scale-2 (GSS-2) which is an objective measurement for measuring individuals susceptibility to interrogative suggestibility into Turkish. Methods: GSS-2 scale translated into Turkish and then backtranslated. Then form is applied to 175 participant whose age ranged from 19 to 36. GSS-2 applied to participants by the researchers. In GSS-2 a story regarding to bicycle accident read to the participants. GSS-2 include immediate recall and delayed recall which is after 45 minutes and formal questioning part which include suggestible questions and negative feedback part. Participants answer the questions about the story they heard during the study. Participants also filled the dissociative experiences scale, submissive act scale, and cognitive failure questionnaire for construct validity. Statistical analysis were performed using SPSS 21 and Lisrel 8.80. Results: Results of the descriptive analysis showed that the mean score for accurate information recalled and confabulation after immediate recall is 14.99 and 3.23 respectively. For the delay recalled mean score for the accurate information is found 14.42 and 4.03 for confabulation after delayed recalled. For suggestibility scores mean scores are found to be 5.25 for yield 1 score; 6.66 for yield 2 score; 4.1 for shift score and the mean score for the total suggestibility is 9.35. The cronbach alpha values of the subscales of the scale were calculated 0.713 for yield 1, 0.812 for yield 2, 0.600 for shift score. Confirmatory factor analysis failed that yield 1 factor found to be unidimensional in accordance with the original, however, shift factor did not show unidimensional properties, that some questions did not fit the factor structure.. There was no significant relationship between GSS-2 scores and the other scales determined for construct validity. Conclusion: The results are discussed in comparison with GSS-2 adaptations in different languages. The study results suggest that culture and language factors may be effective in witness memory and suggestibility. There is need for further studies regarding to Turkish form of GSS-2.

Anahtar Kelime:

Gudjonsson Yönlendirilebilirlik Ölçeği-2’nin Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması

Öz:

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bireylerin sorgu sırasında karşılaşabilecekleri yönlendirici sorulara ve sosyal yönlendirmelere karşı yatkınlıklarını ölçmek amacıyla objektif bir ölçüm aracı olarak geliştirilen Gudjonsson yönlendirilebilirlik ölçeği-2’nin (GSS-2) Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasını gerçekleştirmektir. Yöntem: GSS-2 ölçeği orijinal dili olan İngilizce’den Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş, daha sonra geri çeviri ile Türkçe’den İngilizce’ye çevrilmiştir. Ölçek 19-36 yaş aralığında 175 kişiye uygulanmıştır. Bir bisiklet kazasına ilişkin öyküyü dinleyen katılımcılar dinledikten hemen sonra ve 45 dakika sonra hatırladıkları bilgilere ilişkin serbest anlatımda bulunmuşlardır. Daha sonra yönlendirici soruların ve olumsuz geri bildirimde bulunulan kısımdaki kapalı uçlu soruları yanıtlamışlardır. Aynı zaman yapı geçerliliğinin test edilebilmesi için dissosiyatif yaşantılar ölçeği, boyun eğici davranış ölçeği ve bilişsel hata ölçeğini katılımcıların öz bildirimine dayalı bir biçimde doldurulmuştur. İstatistiksel analizler SPSS 21 ve Lisrel 8.80 ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Betimsel analiz sonucu, hemen geri çağrılmadaki doğru bilgi ve konfabulasyonun ortalamasını sırayla 14,99 ve 3,23 olarak bulmuştur. Gecikmeli hatırlama için doğru bilgi 14,42 ve konfabülasyon 4,03 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Yönlendirmeye ilişkin puanlarda kabul 1 (yield 1) için ortalama 5,25; kabul 2 (yield 2) için ortalama 6,66; değişim (Shift) puanlaması için ortalama 4,1 ve toplam yölendirilebilirlik için ortalama 9,35 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin alt boyutlarının cronbach alfa değerleri yield 1, yield 2 ve shift için sırasıyla 0,713, 0,812, 0,600 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, kabul 1 faktörünün orijinal ölçekle uyumlu olarak tek boyutlu olduğu, ancak değişim faktörünün tek boyutlu özellikler göstermediği, bazı soruların faktör yapısına uymadığı sonucuna varmıştır. GSS-2 puanları ile yapı geçerliği için belirlenen ölçekler arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmamıştır. Sonuç: Bulgular farklı dillerdeki adaptasyon çalışmalarından elde edilen veriler ışığında karşılaştırılmıştır. Ölçek ile ilgili edinilen bulgular dil ve kültür farklılığının önemli olduğu göstermektedir. Ölçeğin kullanımı için norm çalışmalarına ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Sporer SL. A brief history of the psychology of testimony. Current Psychological Reviews. 1982;2(3):323-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684465
2. Loftus EF. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cogn Psychol. 1975;7(4):560-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7
3. McCloskey M, Zaragoza M. Misleading postevent information and memory for events: arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985;114(1):1-16. https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0096- 3445.114.1.1
4. Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ. Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1978;4(1):19-31. https://doi. org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19
5. Paz-Alonso PM, Goodman GS, Ibabe I. Adult eyewitness memory and compliance: effects of post-event misinformation on memory for a negative event. Behav Sci Law. 2013;31(5):541-558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2081
6. Innonceproject.org [Internet] 2021 [updated 2021; cited 2021 December 6] Available from: https://innocenceproject.org/
7. Wells GL, Olson EA. Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54(1):277- 295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
8. Tuckey MR, Brewer N. The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2003;9(2):101-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.101
9. Shaw JS, Bjork RA, Handal A. Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness- memory paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 1995;2(2):249-253. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/BF03210965
10. Lindsay DS. Memory source monitoring and eyewitness testimony. In: Read DJ, Toglia M, editors. Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 27-55.
11. Robinson J, Briggs P. Age trends in eye-witness suggestibility and compliance. Psychology, Crime Law. 1997;3(3):187-202. https://doi. org/10.1080/10683169708410812
12. Bradfield AL, Wells GL, Olson EA. The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(1):112-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.87.1.112
13. Otgaar H, Sauerland M, Petrila JP. Novel shifts in memory research and their impact on the legal process: introduction to the special issue on memory formation and suggestibility in the legal process. Behav Sci Law. 2013;31(5):531-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2095
14. Lipton JP. On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. J Appl Psychol. 1977;62(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.1.90
15. Dunning D, Stern LB. Examining the generality of eyewitness hypermnesia: A close look at time delay and question type. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1992;6(7):643- 657. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350060707
16. LaPaglia JA, Chan JCK. Telling a good story: The effects of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility. PloS One. 2019;14(2):e0212592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212592
17. Gudjonsson GH. A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Pers Individ Differ. 1984;5(3):303-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(84)90069-2
18. Gudjonsson GH, Clark NK. Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behaviour. 1986;1:83-104. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/232488639_Suggestibility_in_police_ interrogation_A_social_psychological_model
19. Loftus EF, Palmer JC. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Behavior is J Verbal Learn. 1974;13(5):585-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
20. Christiaansen RE, Ochalek K. Editing misleading information from memory: Evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information. Mem Cognit. 1983;11(5):467-475. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196983
21. Paz-Alonso PM, Goodman GS. Trauma and memory: Effects of post- event misinformation, retrieval order, and retention interval. Memory. 2008;16(1):58-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701363146
22. Aydin C, Ceci SJ. The role of culture and language in avoiding misinformation: Pilot findings. Behav Sci Law. 2013;31(5):559-573. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bsl.2077
23. Semmler C, Brewer N, Wells GL. Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(2):334-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.334
24. Wells GL, Douglass Bradfield A. " Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(3):360-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360
25. Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K, Wright DB. Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Leg Criminol Psychol. 2004;9(2):215-227. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428
26. Gudjonsson GH. The Gudjonsson suggestibility scales manual. Psychology Press; 1997. https://www.prpress.com/Gudjonsson-Suggestibility-Scales. html
27. Gudjonsson GH. The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. John Wiley & Sons; 1992. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98194-000
28. Bianco A, Curci A. Measuring interrogative suggestibility with the Italian version of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS): Factor structure and discriminant validity. Pers Individ Differ. 2015;82:258-265. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.035
29. Pires R, Silva DR, Ferreira AS. Portuguese adaptation of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS1 and GSS2): Empirical findings. Pers Individ Differ. 2013;54(2):251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.008
30. Polczyk R. Interrogative suggestibility: Cross-cultural stability of psychometric and correlational properties of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Pers Individ Differ. 2005;38(1):177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2004.03.018
31. Wachi T, Watanabe K, Yokota K, Otsuka Y, Hirama K. Comparison between Japanese online and standard administrations of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 and effects of post warning. Leg Criminol Psychol. 2019;24(1):71-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12147
32. Merckelbach H, Muris P, Wessel I, Van Koppen PJ. The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS): Further data on its reliability, validity, and metacognition correlates. Soc Behav Pers. 1998;26(2):203-209. https://doi. org/10.2224/sbp.1998.26.2.203
33. Gudjonsson GH. Suggestibility and compliance among alleged false confessors and resisters in criminal trials. Med Sci Law. 1991;31(2):147-151. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/002580249103100210
34. Frumkin IB, Lally SJ, Sexton JE. A United States forensic sample for the Gudjonsson suggestibility scales. Behav Sci Law. 2012;30(6):749-763. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2032
35. Sigurdsson JF, Gudjonsson GH. The psychological characteristics of ‘false confessors’. A study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Pers Individ Differ. 1996;20(3):321-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191- 8869(95)00184-0
36. Wolfradt U, Meyer T. Interrogative suggestibility, anxiety and dissociation among anxious patients and normal controls. Pers Individ Differ. 1998;25(3):425-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00023-3
37. Gudjonsson GH. Interrogative suggestibility and compliance. Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications. 2013;14:45-46. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr= &id= wHlla_JhdpkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq= Gudjonsson+GH.+Interrogative+ suggestibility+and+compliance.+Suggestibility+in+legal+contexts: +Psychological+research+and+forensic+ implications&ots=axg5GgmYPJ& sig= ZPqEKOX0epGPnKu9lYnX 28gF4f0&redir_esc=y#v= onepage&q= Gudjonsson%20GH.%20Interrogative%20suggestibility%20and%20 compliance. %20Suggestibility %20in%20legal%20contexts%3A%20 Psychological% 20research%20and%20forensic%20implications&f=false
38. Bain SA, Baxter JS, Ballantyne K. Self-monitoring style and levels of interrogative suggestibility. Pers Individ Differ. 2007;42(4):623-630. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.021
39. Drake KE. Interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity, neuroticism, and compliance. Pers Individ Differ. 2010;48(4):493-498. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.030
40. Merckelbach H, Muris P, Rassin E, Horselenberg R. Dissociative experiences and interrogative suggestibility in college students. Pers Individ Differ. 2000;29(6):1133-1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00260-3
41. Drake K, Bull R. Individual differences in interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity and field dependence. Psychol Crime Law. 2011;17(8):677-687. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903511967
42. Gudjonsson GH. Suggestibility, intelligence, memory recall and personality: An experimental study. Br J Psychiatry. 1983;142(1):35-37. https://doi. org/10.1192/bjp.142.1.35
43. Liebman JI, McKinley-Pace MJ, Leonard AM, Sheesley LA, Gallant CL, Renkey ME, et al. Cognitive and psychosocial correlates of adults' eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. Pers Individ Differ. 2002;33(1):49-66. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00135-0
44. Nurmoja M, Bachmann T. On the role of trait-related characteristics in interrogative suggestibility: an example from Estonia. Trames. 2008;12(4):371-381. https://kirj.ee/public/trames_pdf/2008/issue_4/ trames-2008-4-371-381.pdf
45. Muris P, Meesters C, Merckelbach H. Correlates of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale in delinquent adolescents. Psychol Rep. 2004;94(1):264- 266. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.1.264-266
46. Sharrock R, Gudjonsson GH. Intelligence, previous convictions and interrogative suggestibility: A path analysis of alleged false confession cases. Br J Clin Psychol. 1993;32(2):169-175. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.2044- 8260.1993.tb01041.x
47. Singh KK, Gudjonsson GH. Interrogative suggestibility among adolescent boys and its relationship with intelligence, memory, and cognitive set. J Adolesc. 1992;15(2):155-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1971(92)90044-6
48. Clare IC, Gudjonsson GH, Rutter SC, Cross P. The inter rater reliability of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Form 2). Br J Clin Psychol. 1994;33(3):357- 365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01132.x
49. Gignac GE, Powell MB. A psychometric evaluation of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales: Problems associated with measuring suggestibility as a difference score composite. Pers Individ Differ. 2009;46(2):88-93. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.007
50. Singh K, Gudjonsson GH. The internal consistency of the “shift” factor on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Pers Individ Differ. 1987;8(2):265-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90183-8
51. Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol. 1982;21(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x
52. Şenkal İ, Palabıyıkoğlu NR, Bakar EE, Çandar T, Ekinci EBM, Bozoğlu EF, ve ark. Bilişsel Hatalar Ölçeği İle Subjektif Bellek Yakınmaları Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Versiyonlarının Psikometrik Özellikleri. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar. 2015;5(1):6-12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319940618_ Bilissel_Hatalar_Olcegi_ile_Subjektif_Bellek_Yakinmalari_Olcegi'nin_ Turkce_Versiyonlarinin_Psikometrik_Ozellikleri
53. Gilbert P, Allan S. Assertiveness, submissive behaviour and social comparison. Br J Clin Psychol. 1994;33(3):295-306. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01125.x
54. Savaşır I, Şahin N. Bilişsel-davranışçı terapilerde değerlendirme: Sık kullanılan ölçekler. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği; 1997. https:// www.nadirkitap.com/bilissel-davranisci-terapilerde-degerlendirme-sik- kullanilan-olcekler-isik-savasir-nesrin-sahin-kitap1266682.html
55. Frischholz EJ, Braun BG, Sachs RG, Hopkins L, Shaeffer DM, Lewis J, et al. The Dissociative Experiences Scale: Further replication and validation. Dissociation. 1990;3(3):151-153. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/ bitstream/handle/1794/1653/Diss_3_3_5_OCR_rev.pdf?sequence=4
56. Yargic LI, Tutkun H, Şar V. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Dissociative Experiences Scale. Dissociation. 1995;3(1):10-13. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/1589/ Diss_8_1_3_OCR_rev.pdf;sequence=4
57. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness- of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003;8(2):23-74. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
58. Gudjonsson GH. Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Pers Individ Differ. 1989;10(5):535-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191- 8869(89)90035-4
59. Gutchess AH, Schwartz AJ, Boduroğlu A. The influence of culture on memory. In International Conference on Foundations of Augmented Cognition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 642-21852-1_9
60. Wagar BM, Cohen D. Culture, memory, and the self: An analysis of the personal and collective self in long-term memory. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2003;39(5):468-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00021-0
61. Wang Q, Ross M. What we remember and what we tell: The effects of culture and self-priming on memory representations and narratives. Memory. 2005;13(6):594-606. https://doi.org/.10.1080/09658210444000223
62. Anakwah N, Horselenberg R, Hope L, Amankwah Poku M, Van Koppen PJ. Cross cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2020;34(2):504-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3637
63. Anakwah N, Horselenberg R, Hope L, Amankwah Poku M, van Koppen PJ. The acculturation effect and eyewitness memory reports among migrants. Leg Criminol Psychol. 2020;25(2):237-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12179
64. Krauss DA, Lieberman JD. Psychological and Cultural Aspects of Interrogations and False Confessions: Using Research to Inform Legal Decision-Making. In Psychological Expertise in Court 2016 Apr 15 (pp. 47-78). Routledge. (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315602813-8/ psychological-cultural-aspects-interrogations-false-confessions-using- research-inform-legal-decision-making)
65. Gudjonsson GH. A parallel form of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Br J Clin Psychol. 1987;26(3):215-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1987. tb01348.x
66. Zaragoza MS. Memory, suggestibility, and eyewitness testimony in children and adults. In Children’s eyewitness memory. New York, NY: Springer; 1987. p. 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6338-5_4
67. Warren AR, Lane P. Effects of timing and type of questioning on eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. In: Zaragoza MS, Graham JR, Hall GCN, Hirschman R, Ben-Porath YS, editors. Memory and testimony in the child witness. Washington, DC: Sage Publications, Inc. 1995. p. 44-60. https:// psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-98602-003

APA	ILDIRIM E, Ziyalar N (2023). Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. , 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
Chicago	ILDIRIM Ezgi,Ziyalar Neylan Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. (2023): 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
MLA	ILDIRIM Ezgi,Ziyalar Neylan Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. , 2023, ss.6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
AMA	ILDIRIM E,Ziyalar N Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. . 2023; 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
Vancouver	ILDIRIM E,Ziyalar N Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. . 2023; 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
IEEE	ILDIRIM E,Ziyalar N "Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study." , ss.6 - 14, 2023. 10.17986/blm.1607
ISNAD	ILDIRIM, Ezgi - Ziyalar, Neylan. "Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study". (2023), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.1607

APA	ILDIRIM E, Ziyalar N (2023). Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. Adli Tıp Bülteni, 28(1), 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
Chicago	ILDIRIM Ezgi,Ziyalar Neylan Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. Adli Tıp Bülteni 28, no.1 (2023): 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
MLA	ILDIRIM Ezgi,Ziyalar Neylan Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. Adli Tıp Bülteni, vol.28, no.1, 2023, ss.6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
AMA	ILDIRIM E,Ziyalar N Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. Adli Tıp Bülteni. 2023; 28(1): 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
Vancouver	ILDIRIM E,Ziyalar N Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study. Adli Tıp Bülteni. 2023; 28(1): 6 - 14. 10.17986/blm.1607
IEEE	ILDIRIM E,Ziyalar N "Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study." Adli Tıp Bülteni, 28, ss.6 - 14, 2023. 10.17986/blm.1607
ISNAD	ILDIRIM, Ezgi - Ziyalar, Neylan. "Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 Turkish Reliability and Validity Study". Adli Tıp Bülteni 28/1 (2023), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.1607