Author :
Abstract
The aim of this research is to adapt the Social Vulnerability Scale (Pinsker, Stone, Pachana, & Greenspan, 2006) to Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties. The research was conducted on 631 university students in Sakarya University and Agri Ibrahim Cecen University. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of .95 and a significant result on Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 değeri 500,498 (p<.001, df=105). Results confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that 15 items yielded two factor as original form and that the two-dimensional model was well fit (x²= 283.21, df= 84, RMSEA= .075, CFI= .99, IFI= .99, NFI= .98, RFI= .97, GFI= .92, SRMR= .043). Factor loadings ranged from .41 ile .91. Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .94 for whole scale, .87 for sub-dimension of gullibility, .93 for sub-dimension of credulity. In the concurrent validity significant relationships (r= .34) were found between the Social Vulnerability Scale and Psychological Vulnerability Scale. Test-retest reliability coefficient was .80 for whole scale. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .38 to .87. Overall results demonstrated that Social Vulnerability Scale can be named as a valid and reliable instrument that could be used in the field of psychology and education.
Keywords
Abstract
The aim of this research is to adapt the Social Vulnerability Scale (Pinsker, Stone, Pachana, & Greenspan, 2006) to Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties. The research was conducted on 631 university students in Sakarya University and Agri Ibrahim Cecen University. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of .95 and a significant result on Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 değeri 500,498 (p<.001, df=105). Results confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that 15 items yielded two factor as original form and that the two-dimensional model was well fit (x²= 283.21, df= 84, RMSEA= .075, CFI= .99, IFI= .99, NFI= .98, RFI= .97, GFI= .92, SRMR= .043). Factor loadings ranged from .41 ile .91. Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .94 for whole scale, .87 for sub-dimension of gullibility, .93 for sub-dimension of credulity. In the concurrent validity significant relationships (r= .34) were found between the Social Vulnerability Scale and Psychological Vulnerability Scale. Test-retest reliability coefficient was .80 for whole scale. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .38 to .87. Overall results demonstrated that Social Vulnerability Scale can be named as a valid and reliable instrument that could be used in the field of psychology and education.
Keywords
- Akın, A., & Eker, H. (2011, July). Turkish version of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale: A study of validity and reliability. Paper presented at the 32th International Conference of the Stress and Anxiety Research Society (STAR), July, 18-20, Münster, Germany.
- Andrew, M. K., & Rockwood, K. (2010). Social vulnerability predicts cognitive decline in a prospective cohort of older Canadians. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 6(4), 319–325. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2009.11.001
- Birkman, J. (2006). Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: Theoretical bases and requirements. InJ. Birkman(Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies(pp. 5577).Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
- Boyce, J. K. (2000). Let them eat risk? Wealth, rights and disaster vulnerability. Disasters, 24(3), 254-261.
- Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö., Kahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 207-239.
- Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574. doi: 10.1177/0022022199030005001
- Crocker J. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-regulation and psychological vulnerability. Self and Identity, 1, 143–149. doi:10.1080/152988602317319320
- Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002
- Gökçakan. Z., & Gökçakan, N. (2005). Depresyonda bilişsel terapi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 91-101.
- Greenspan, S. (2005). Credulity and gullibility among service providers: An attempt to understand why snake oil sells. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, science in professional practice (pp. 129–138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Greenspan, S., Loughlin, G., & Black, R. S. (2001). Credulity and gullibility in people with developmental disorders: A framework for future research. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 24, 101–135. doi: 10.1016/S0074-7750(01)80007-0
- Gudjonsson, G. H. (2010). Psychological vulnerabilities during police interviews. Why are they important? Legal and Criminological Psychology,15, 161-175. doi: 10.1348/135532510X500064
- Hu, L. T., & Bnetler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
- Ingram, R. E., & Luxton, D. D. (2005). Vulnerability-Stress Models. In B. L. Hankin & J. R. Z. Abela (Eds.), Development of psychopathology: A vulnerability stress perspective (pp. 32-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Kok, M. T. J., Narain, V., Wonink, S., & Jäger, J. (2006). Human vulnerability to environmental change: An approach for UNEP’s global environmental outlook (GEO). InJ. Birkman (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (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. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1
- Mongrain, M., & Blackburn, S. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability, lifetime risk, and the recurrence of major depression in graduate students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 747–768. doi: 10.1007/s10608-0054290-7
- Phillips, B. D., Thomas, D. S. K., Fothergill, A., & Blinn-Pike, L. (Eds.) (2010). Social vulnerability to disasters. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
- Pinsker, D. M., McFarlan, K., & Stone, V. E. (2011). The social vulnerability scale for older adults: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic study. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 23(3), 246-272. doi: 10.1080/08946566.2011.584049
- Pinsker, D. M., Stone, V. E., Pachana, N. A., & Greenspan, S. (2006). Social vulnerability scale for older adults: A validation study. Clinical Psychologist, 10, 117–127. doi: 10.1080/13284200600939918
- Rigby, K. (2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their implications. School Psychology International, 25(3), 287–300. doi: 10.1177/0143034304046902
- Sarıçam, H., Uysal, R., Ilbay, A. B., Çardak, M., & Akın, A. (2012, May). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the socialvulnerabilityscale. Paper presented at the International Counseling and Education Conference 2012 (ICEC 2012), May, 3-5, Istanbul, Turkey.
- Scanlon, A., & Lee, G. ( 2007). The use of the term vulnerability in acute care: why does it differ and what does it mean? Austrlian Journal of Advance Nursing, 24(3) 54-59.
- Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation of the psychological vulnerability scale. Cognitive Therap y and Research, 23(2), 119-129.
- Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. & Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta.
- Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları,
- Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Yılmaz, V., & Çelik H. E. (2009). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-1: Temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama.Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
- Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge.