Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 153 - 163 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687 İndeks Tarihi: 22-05-2020

Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği

Öz:
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri kısa formunun (KFTEK) Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlilik ve güvenirliliğinin ergenlerde test edilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırma iki çalışmadan oluşmaktadır. Birinci çalışmada envanterin yapı geçerliliğidoğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile incelenmiş, yakınsak ve ıraksak geçerliliği ise Çıkarılmış OrtalamaVaryans (AVE) ve Birleşik Güvenirlilik (CR) değerleri ile incelenmiştir. Envanterin güvenirliliğiiçin iç tutarlık katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. İkinci aşamada ise envanterin cinsiyete göre ölçüm değişmezliği çoklu grup doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile incelenmiştir. Birinci çalışmaya 12-18 yaş aralığında, 233 kız (xyaş= 14,33±1,56), 91 erkek (xyaş= 14,67±1,59) olmak üzere 324 ergen (xyaş=14,42±1,57); ikinci çalışmaya ise 12-19 yaş aralığında, 720 kız (xyaş=15,44±1,03), 929 erkek (xyaş=15,35±1,45) toplam 1.649 ergen (xyaş= 15,39±1,28) katılmıştır. Bulgular: Birinci çalışmada yapılandoğrulayıcı faktör analizinde kabul edilebilir uyum değerlerine ulaşılırken, AVE ve CR değerleride kabul edilebilir sınırlardadır. Envanterin alt boyutlarına ait iç tutarlık katsayısı ise 0,73 (Kendine güven) ile 0,93 (Spor yeteneği) arasındadır. İkinci çalışmada yapılan çoklu grup doğrulayıcıfaktör analizinde ise envanterin cinsiyet değişkenine göre biçimsel, zayıf, güçlü ve katı değişmezliği sağladığı görülmüştür. Sonuç: Tüm bu bulgular neticesinde KFTE-K, yapı geçerliliği, yakınsak,ıraksak geçerlilik, güvenirlilik ve cinsiyetlere göre ölçüm değişmezliği sağlamaktadır. Envanterinfiziksel benlik algısı ve genel benlik algısı ile ilgili yapılan araştırmalarda kullanmak için geçerli vegüvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları Beşeri Bilimler Spor Bilimleri

The Validity and Reliability of the Short Form of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire Among Adolescents

Öz:
Objective: The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of Turkish version of Physical Self-Description Questionnaire Short Form (PSDQ-S) for adolescents. The research consists of two separate studies. Material and Methods: In the first study, the construct validity of the scale was examined by confirmatory factor analysis and its convergent and discriminant validity was also examined by Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) values. The internal consistency coefficient was calculated for the reliability of the scale. In the second study, measurement invariance of the scale with regard to gender was examined by multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Two hundred thirty-three females (Mage= 14.33±1.56) and 91 males (Mage= 14.67±1.59), totally 324 adolescents (Mage= 14.42±1.57) voluntarily participated in the first study and 720 females (Mage= 15.44±1.03) and 929 males (Mage= 15.35±1.45), totally 1.649 adolescents (Mage= 15.39±1.28) participated in the second study. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis, AVE and CR values were found within acceptable limits in the first study. The internal consistency of the subscales ranged between 0.73 (Self Confidence subscale) and 0.93 (Sport Ability subscales). In the second study, multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale provided configural, weak, strong and strict invariance according to gender variable. Conclusion: As a result, PSDQ-S Turkish form provides the construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, measurement invariance with regard to gender variable and reliability. It can be said that the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool for use researches related to physical self and general self.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları Beşeri Bilimler Spor Bilimleri
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Martin J, Garn A, Ferry M, McCaughtry N, Shen B, Fahlman M. Multidimensional physical self-concept in underserved urban high school students: predicting physical activity. J Appl Biobehav Res. 2016;21(2):107-23. [Crossref]
  • 2. Marsh HW, Papaioannou A, Theodorakis Y. Causal ordering of physical self-concept and exercise behavior: reciprocal effects model and the influence of physical education teachers. Health Psychol. 2006;25(3):316-28. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 3. Blashill AJ, Wilhelm S. Body image distortions, weight, and depression in adolescent boys: longitudinal trajectories into adulthood. Psychol Men Masc. 2014;15(4):445-51. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
  • 4. Amesberger G, Finkenzeller T, Müller E, Würth S. Ageing-related changes of the relationship between the physical self-concept and the physical fitness in elderly individuals. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;Suppl 1:26-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 5. Maïano C, Ninot G, Morin AJ, Bilard J. Effects of sport participation on the basketball skills and physical self of adolescents with conduct disorders. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2007;24(2):178-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 6. Saigh PA, Yasik AE, Oberfield R, Halamandaris PV. The self-concept of traumatized children and adolescents with or without PTSD. Behav Res Ther. 2008;46(10):1181-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 7. Ricciardelli LA, McCabe MP. Children’s body image concerns and eating disturbance: a review of the literature. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001;21(3):325-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 8. Sukumaran S, Vickers B, Yates P, Garralda ME. Self-esteem in child and adolescent psychiatric patients. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;12(4):190-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 9. Craven RG, Marsh HW. The centrality of the self-concept construct for psychological wellbeing and unlocking human potential: implications for child and educational psychologists. Education and Child Psychology. 2008;25(2):104-18.
  • 10. Marsh HW, Martin AJ, Jackson S. Introducing a short version of the physical self description questionnaire: new strategies, short-form evaluative criteria, and applications of factor analyses. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010;32(4): 438-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 11. Shavelson RJ, Hubner JJ, Stanton GC. Selfconcept: validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research (RER). 1976;46(3):407-41. [Crossref]
  • 12. Aşçı FH. [Comparison of physical self-perception with regard to gender and physical activity level]. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2004;15(1):39-48.
  • 13. Fox KR, Corbin CB. The physical self-perception profile: development and preliminary validation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1989;11(4): 408-30. [Crossref]
  • 14. Hagger MS, Stevenson A, Chatzisarantis NLD, Gaspar PMP, Ferreira JPL, Ravé JMG. Physical self-concept and social physique anxiety: Invariance across culture, gender and age. Stress and Health. 2010;26(4):304-29. [Crossref]
  • 15. Hagger MS, Aşçı FH, Lindwall M. A cross-cultural evaluation of a multidimensional and hierarchical model of physical self-perceptions in three national samples. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2004;34(5):1075-107. [Crossref]
  • 16. Aşçı FH, Aşçı A, Zorba E. Cross-cultural validity and reliability of physical selfperception profile. Int J Sport Psychol. 1999;30(3):399- 406.
  • 17. Aşçı HF, Maïano C, Morin AJS, Çağlar E, Bilgili N. Validity and reliability of the very short form of the physical self-inventory among Turkish adolescents. J Sport Sci. 2017;35(21): 2060-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 18. Lindwall M, Asci FH, Hagger MS. Factorial validity and measurement invariance of the Revised Physical Self-Perception Profile (PSPP-R) in three countries. Psychol Health Med. 2011;16(1):115-28. Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 19. Marsh HW, Redmayne RS. A multidimensional physical self-concept and its relations to multiple components of physical fitness. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1994;16(1):43-55. [Crossref]
  • 20. Marsh HW, Richards GE, Johnson S, Roche L, Tremayne P. Physical self-description questionnaire: psychometric properties and a miiltitrait-meltimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1994;16(3):270-305. [Crossref]
  • 21. Marsh HW, Marco IT, Abçý FH. Cross-cultural validity of the physical self-description questionnaire: comparison of factor structures in Australia, Spain, and Turkey. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73(3):257-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 22. Marsh HW, Bar-Eli M, Zach S, Richards GE. Construct validation of hebrew versions of three physical self-concept measures: an extended multitrait-multimethod analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;28(3):310-43. [Crossref]
  • 23. Stiller J, Alfermann D. [The German physical self-description questionnaire (PSDQ): Psychometric properties and a preliminary assessment of reliability and validity for adolescents and young adults]. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie. 2007;14(4):149-61. [Crossref]
  • 24. Maïano C, Morin AJS, Mascret N. Psychometric properties of the short form of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire in a French adolescent sample. Body Image. 2015;12:89- 97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 25. Marsh HW, Cheng JHS. Physical self-concept. In: Tenenbaum G, Eklund R, Kamata A, eds. Handbook of Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psycholgy. 1st ed. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics; 2012. p.215-26.
  • 26. Sypsa C, Simons J. Questionnaires measuring the physical self children: a review. European Journal of Psychomotorcity (EPJ). 2008;1(2):61-72.
  • 27. Vlachopoulos SP, Elisavet T, Fox KR. Development and initial evidence of validity of a short form of the physical self-perception profile for Greek adults. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2014;12(2):166-84. [Crossref]
  • 28. Çağlar E, Aşçı FH, Bilgili N. [Psychometric properties of physical self inventory Turkish version among university students]. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry. 2017;18(6):594-601. [Crossref]
  • 29. Maïano C, Morin AJS, Ninot G, MonthuyBlanc J, Stephan Y, Florent JF, et al. A short and very short form of the physical self-inventory for adolescents: development and factor validity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2008;9(6):830-47. [Crossref]
  • 30. Ninot G, Deligniéres D, Fortes M. [Assessment of self-esteem in physical domain]. STAPS. 2000;53:35-48.
  • 31. Morin AJS, Maïano C, White RL, Owen KB, Tracey D, Mascret N, et al. English validation of the short form of the physical self-inventory (PSI-S). Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2016;27:180-94. [Crossref]
  • 32. Morin AJS, Maïano C, Scalas LF, Aşçı FH, Boughattas W, Abid S, et al. Cross-cultural validation of the short form of the physical self inventory (PSI-S). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. 2018;7(1):60-79. [Crossref]
  • 33. Maïano C, Morin AJ, Probst M. Cross-linguistic validity of the French and Dutch versions of the Very Short form of the Physical Self-Inventory among adolescents. Body Image. 2015;15:35-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  • 34. Scalas LF, Morin AJS, Maïano C, Fadda D. [A contribution to the Italian validation of the short and very short versions of the physical self inventory (PSI) for adolescents]. Ricerche di Psicologia. 2013;3:385-408.
  • 35. Marsh HW. Application of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling in sport and exercise psychology. In: Tenenbaum G, Eklund R, eds. Handbook of Sport Psycholgy. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: British Psychological Society; 2007. p.774-89. [Crossref]
  • 36. Haapea I, Haverinen K, Honkalampi K, Kuittinen M, Räty H. The factor structure and reliability of the short form of the physical self-description questionnaire in a Finnish adolescent athlete sample. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018;16(5):488-504. [Crossref]
  • 37. Braun A, Martin T, Alfermann D, Michel S. [Analysis of the reliability and validity of the Short Version of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire (PSDQ-S) for persons of early and late adulthood]. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie. 2018;25(3):115-27. [Crossref]
  • 38. Brown T, Bonsaksen T. An examination of the structural validity of the physical self-description questionnaire-short form (PSDQ-S) using the Rasch Measurement Model. Educational Assessment and Evaluation. 2019;6:1-28. [Crossref]
  • 39. Wang CKJ, Sun Y, Liu WC, Yao J, Pyun DY. Latent profile analysis of the physical self-description among Chinese adolescents. Curr Psychol. 2015;34(2):282-93. [Crossref]
  • 40. Byrne BM. Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Theoretical Construct. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2010. p.53-96.
  • 41. Kline RB. Hypothesis Testing. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2011. p.189-229.
  • 42. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2014. p.599-638.
  • 43. Byrne BM. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled. Struct Equ Modeling. 2004;11(2):272-300. [Crossref]
  • 44. Wu AD, Li Z, Zumbo BD. Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: a demonstration with TIMSS data. PARE. 2007;12(3):1-26.
  • 45. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2): 233-55. [Crossref]
  • 46. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14(3):464-504. [Crossref]
  • 47. Urbina S. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. p.162.
  • 48. Dolenc P. The short form of the physical selfdescription questionnaire : validation study among Slovenian elementary and high school students. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER). 2016;24(2):58-74.
  • 49. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. 5. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2018. p.304.
  • 50. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2012. p.124.
  • 51. Kline P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 1994. p.52.
  • 52. Field A. Exploratory Factor Analysis. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2009. p.675.
  • 53. Huang CC, Wang YM, Wu TW, Wang PA. An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. IJIET. 2013;3(2):217-21. [Crossref]
  • 54. Byrne BM, Watkins D. The issue of measurement invariance revisited. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2003;34(2):155-75. [Crossref]
  • 55. Milfont TL, Fischer R. [Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research]. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3(1):111-30. [Crossref]
APA URFA O, Yildizer G, AŞÇI F, Caglar E, Micoogullari B (2019). Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. , 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
Chicago URFA Osman,Yildizer Gunay,AŞÇI FEVZİYE HÜLYA,Caglar Emine,Micoogullari Bülent Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. (2019): 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
MLA URFA Osman,Yildizer Gunay,AŞÇI FEVZİYE HÜLYA,Caglar Emine,Micoogullari Bülent Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. , 2019, ss.153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
AMA URFA O,Yildizer G,AŞÇI F,Caglar E,Micoogullari B Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. . 2019; 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
Vancouver URFA O,Yildizer G,AŞÇI F,Caglar E,Micoogullari B Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. . 2019; 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
IEEE URFA O,Yildizer G,AŞÇI F,Caglar E,Micoogullari B "Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği." , ss.153 - 163, 2019. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
ISNAD URFA, Osman vd. "Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği". (2019), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
APA URFA O, Yildizer G, AŞÇI F, Caglar E, Micoogullari B (2019). Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(3), 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
Chicago URFA Osman,Yildizer Gunay,AŞÇI FEVZİYE HÜLYA,Caglar Emine,Micoogullari Bülent Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 11, no.3 (2019): 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
MLA URFA Osman,Yildizer Gunay,AŞÇI FEVZİYE HÜLYA,Caglar Emine,Micoogullari Bülent Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.11, no.3, 2019, ss.153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
AMA URFA O,Yildizer G,AŞÇI F,Caglar E,Micoogullari B Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019; 11(3): 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
Vancouver URFA O,Yildizer G,AŞÇI F,Caglar E,Micoogullari B Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019; 11(3): 153 - 163. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
IEEE URFA O,Yildizer G,AŞÇI F,Caglar E,Micoogullari B "Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği." Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 11, ss.153 - 163, 2019. 10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687
ISNAD URFA, Osman vd. "Kendini Fiziksel Tanımlama Envanteri Kısa Formunun Ergenlerde Geçerlilik ve Güvenirliliği". Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 11/3 (2019), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.5336/sportsci.2019-66687