Yıl: 2015 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 27 - 36 Metin Dili: Türkçe

YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz:
Bu araştırmanın amacı Yaşam Anlamı Ölçeği'nin (YAÖ; Steger, Frazier, Oishi ve Kaler, 2006) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. yürütülmüştür. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında, YAÖ'nün Türkçe ve orijinal formlarında bulunan maddeler arasındaki korelasyon katsayıları .65 ile .91 arasında bulunmuştur. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde 10 maddenin toplam varyansın %57'sini açıkladığı ve maddelerin mevcut anlam ve aranan anlam şeklinde iki alt boyutta toplandığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin faktör yükleri .54 ile .77, madde toplam korelasyonu puanları ise .42 ile .68 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde iki boyutlu modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (x²= 77.77, sd= 31, RMSEA= .065, NFI= .95, CFI= .97, GFI= .96, AGFI= .93, RFI= .93, SRMR= .065). YAÖ'nün iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayıları mevcut anlam alt ölçeği için .77, aranan anlam alt ölçeği için .83 olarak bulunmuştur. Dört hafta arayla elde edilen testtekrar test güvenirlik katsayılarının ise mevcut anlam alt ölçeği için .89, aranan anlam alt ölçeği için .92 olduğu saptanmıştır. Benzer ölçek geçerliği çalışmasında YAÖ ile korelasyonlar hesaplanmış ve yaşam anlamının özgünlük ile pozitif ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Bu korelasyonlar, ölçeğin uyum geçerliği için önemli bir kanıttır. Yapı ve uyum geçerliğinden elde edilen bu sonuçlar YAÖ'nün Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir
Anahtar Kelime:

MEANING IN LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE: A STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Öz:
Frankl has argued that humans are characterised by a “will to meaning,” an inherent drive to find meaning and significance in their lives, and that defailment to achieve meaning results in psychological distress. Meaning in life is associated with many important variables such as depression, anxiety, hope and satisfaction. It is related to satisfaction, enjoy from work and happiness, while absence of the meaning in life is related to many disorders as depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and substance use. Moreover, it is associated with purposes positively which makes studying the meaning in life crucial. This study investigates the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger, Frazier, Oishi & Kaler, 2006). Primarily the Meaning in Life Questionnaire was translated into Turkish by two academicians from English Languageand Literature department. Before validity and reliability studies, to examine the language equivalency of the scale the correlations between Turkish and English forms were calculated. In this study exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the factor structure of the scale according to the data obtained from the Turkish students andconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was executed to confirm the original scale's structure in Turkish culture. As reliability analysis re-test and internal consistency coefficients, and the item-total correlations were examined. Meaning in Life Questionnaire and authenticity scale have been calculated for the convergent validity. The authenticity scale developed by Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis and Josep (2008) has been composed of three subscales called self-alienation, to be open to outer affections, and authentic life. Akın and Dönmezoğulları have performed the study for the Turkish adaptation of validity and reliability analysis. The authenticity scale has been composed of 12 articles and likert with7 (1: It does not identify me at all, 7: It identifies me very well). The validity and reliability analysis of Meaning in Life Questionnaire for Turkish form have been practiced on two workgroups. The first group has included 356 undergraduate students. 151 of thesestudents have also been practiced this test after four weeks by means of the test-retest method. The second group at which linguistic equivalence has been carried out includes 58 English teachers. For the construct validity of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire,firstly, sampling adequacy and Barlett Sphericity test have been applied. It has been found that total variance explained by of 10 items is 57%. The items have been gathered under two sub-dimensions called the present meaning and the searched meaning. The factor loadings of the scale have been varied between .54 and .77, and the item-total correlation coefficients have been varied between .42 and .68. In confirmatory factor analysis it has been found that two-dimensional model was fitted well (x²= 77.77, df= 31, RMSEA= .065, NFI= .95, CFI= .97, GFI= .96, AGFI= .93, RFI= .93, SRMR= .065). The data obtained from linguistic equivalence in Meaning in Life Questionnaire show that correlation coefficient among articles taking place in Turkish and original form range from .65 to .91. Linguisticequivalence coefficient has been found .88 for the present meaning subscale, .76 for the searched subscale. The findings obtained from scale’s English and Turkish forms of linguistic equivalence studies show that the articles taken place in both forms have been found to be quite interrelated with each other. In other words, the translated articles andthe original ones in English have been quite similar and the scale has been at sufficient level in terms of linguistic equivalence. This result also illustrates that the translation process has been completed successfully. The correlations between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and authenticity scale have been calculated for the convergent validity. Afterhaving been calculated the correlations between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the authenticity scale, it has been deduced that there is a positive relationship between life meaning and authenticity. The reliability coefficients for the internal consistency of Meaning in Life Questionnaire has been .77 for the present meaning subscale, .83 forthe searched meaning subscale. The reliability coefficients of test-retest method that have been performed after four weeks have been .89 for the present meaning subscale and .92 for the searched meaning subscale. These correlations are important proofs for the validity of the scale. The results taken from the validity of construction and adaptation show thevalidity of Turkish form of Meaning in Life Questionnaire. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire’s high reliability proportion show that the reliability is sufficient. According to the results obtained from the validity and reliability studies, it can be said that the scale is ready to be used. However, for the validity and the reliability of the scale, it is necessary to perform the study on different groups. Furthermore, to practice studies, in whichthis scale will be used, would provide important contributions to the power of measurement. Finally, with the aim of determining the scale’s validity of adaptation, the relationships between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the scales which may be related with the life meaning, evaluate the various emotional and cognitive constructionsrelated with life, and have been proved to be valid and reliable. Finally, it is possible to analyze the relationships between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the scales, of which validity and reliability have been proven and which evaluates various emotional and cognitive structures that could be related with the life meaning.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • AKIN, A. ve DÖNMEZOĞULLARI, C. (2010, April). The validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Authenticity Scale. Paper presented at the 2nd International Congress of Educational Research, 29 April-2 May, Antalya, Turkey.
  • AYDIN, S. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının başarı amaç yönelimleri ve akademik öz-yeterliklerinin yapısal eşitlik modeliyle incelenmesi/Investigation of the relationship between preservice science teachers’ achievement goal orientations and academic self-efficacy with structural equation model. Turkish Studies. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 221-230.
  • BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş. (2004). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • CRUMBAUGH, J. C., ve MAHOLİCK, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 200–207.
  • FRANKL, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Washington Square Press.
  • HALAMA, P. (2005). Relationship between meaning ın life and the big five personality traits in young adults and the elderly. Studia Psychologica, 47(3), 167-178.
  • HARLOW, L. L., NEWCOMB, M. D., ve BENTLER, P. M. (1986). Self-derogation, substance use, and suicide ideation: Lack of purpose in life as a mediational factor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 5–21.
  • HİCKS, J. A, ve King, L. A (2007). Meaning in life and seeing the big picture: Positive affect and global focus cognition and emotion, Xp Psychology Press, 21(7), 1577-1584.
  • HU, L. T., ve BENTLER, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
  • İNAN, C. (2014). Orta öğretim öğrencilerinin matematiğe yönelik tutumlarını ölçen geçerli ve güvenirli ölçek geliştirme/Developing A valid and reliable scale for measuring secondary education students’ attitudes towards mathematics. Turkish Studies. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(12), 381-398.
  • JIM, H. S., PURNELL, C. Q., RICHARDSON, S. A., GOLDEN-KREUTZ, D. ve ANDERSEN, B. L. (2006). Measuring meaning in life following cancer. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1355- 1371.
  • JORESKOG, K. G., ve SORBOM, D. (1996). LISREL 8 reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
  • LEONTİEV, D. A (2005). Three facets of meaning. Journal of Russian And East European Psychology, 43(6), 45-72.
  • LİNDEMAN, M., ve VERKASSALO, M. (1996). Meaning in life for Finnish students. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 645-649.
  • MELTON, A. M. A., ve SCHULENBERG, S. E. (2008) On the measurement of meaning: Logotherapy's empirical contributions to humanistic psychology. The Hümanistle Psychologist, 36, 31-44.
  • MORGAN, J. ve FARSİDES, T. (2009). Measuring meaning in life. J. Happiness Studies, 10, 197-214.
  • RYAN, R. M., ve DECI, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psycholog, 52, 141–166.
  • RYFF, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well being. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 57, 1069– 1081.
  • RYFF, C. D., ve SINGER, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.
  • SCANNEL, E. D., FELICITY, C. L. ALLEN, ve Janet, B. (2002). Meaning in life and positive and negative well-being. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 93-112.
  • SCHNELL, T. (2009). The sources of meaning in life questionnaire (some): Relations to demographics and well-being. The Journal of Psitive Psychology, 4(6), 483-499.
  • SELIGMAN, M. E. P., ve CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An Introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
  • STEGER, M. F., FRAZIER, P., OISHI, S., ve KALER. M. (2006). The meaning in life quetionnaire: Assesing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80-93.
  • STEGER, M. F., KASHDAN, T. B., SULLİVAN, B. A., ve LORENTZ, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76, 2.
  • ZİKA, S., ve CHAMBERLAİN, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 133-145.
  • ZUBAİR, M, (1999). The relationship between meaning in life and mental well-being the relationship between meaning in life and mental well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 29(1), 36-41.
APA AKIN A, TAŞ İ (2015). YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. , 27 - 36.
Chicago AKIN AHMET,TAŞ İBRAHİM YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. (2015): 27 - 36.
MLA AKIN AHMET,TAŞ İBRAHİM YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. , 2015, ss.27 - 36.
AMA AKIN A,TAŞ İ YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. . 2015; 27 - 36.
Vancouver AKIN A,TAŞ İ YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. . 2015; 27 - 36.
IEEE AKIN A,TAŞ İ "YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI." , ss.27 - 36, 2015.
ISNAD AKIN, AHMET - TAŞ, İBRAHİM. "YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI". (2015), 27-36.
APA AKIN A, TAŞ İ (2015). YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Turkish Studies (Elektronik), 10(3), 27 - 36.
Chicago AKIN AHMET,TAŞ İBRAHİM YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Turkish Studies (Elektronik) 10, no.3 (2015): 27 - 36.
MLA AKIN AHMET,TAŞ İBRAHİM YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Turkish Studies (Elektronik), vol.10, no.3, 2015, ss.27 - 36.
AMA AKIN A,TAŞ İ YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Turkish Studies (Elektronik). 2015; 10(3): 27 - 36.
Vancouver AKIN A,TAŞ İ YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Turkish Studies (Elektronik). 2015; 10(3): 27 - 36.
IEEE AKIN A,TAŞ İ "YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI." Turkish Studies (Elektronik), 10, ss.27 - 36, 2015.
ISNAD AKIN, AHMET - TAŞ, İBRAHİM. "YAŞAM ANLAMI ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI". Turkish Studies (Elektronik) 10/3 (2015), 27-36.