You are here

Home » Content

SLE BÜTÜNLESME ÖLÇEG TÜRKÇE FORMU’NUN GÜVENLRLK VE GEÇERLLK ÇALISMASI

JOB ENGAGEMENT SCALE TURKISH FORM'S VALIDITY AND REALIBILITY STUDY

Journal Name:

  • Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this study is to measure the reliability and validity of the Job Engagement Scale Turkish Form (JES-TR) which was developed by Rich (2006). The original scale was translated into Turkish and applied to 118 employees who work in Kastamonu University. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis for the validity, 3 dimensions and 6 items for each dimension was achieved like the original scale. The goodness of fit statistics of the three factor structure was measured by confirmatory factor analysis. The internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found .95. When the sub-dimensions of the scale was investigated, the internal consistency coefficient for physical engagement dimension (PE) was .91, for emotional engagement (EE) was .94, and the cognitive engagement (CE) dimension was .95. The split-half reliability coefficient was .97. The corrected item-total correlation coefficients were ranged between .52-.79. The results of the independent samples t test between upper 27 % and lower 27 % groups’ item mean scores indicated that the differences for all items and subscale total scores are significant. In this study, IBO-TR was found valid and reliable.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu arastırmanın amacı Rich (2006) tarafından gelistirilen sle Bütünlesme Ölçegi Türkçe Formu’nun (BÖ-TR) güvenilirligini ve geçerliligini ölçmektir. Özgün ölçek Türkçeye çevrilmis ve Kastamonu Üniversitesi’nde istihdam edilen 118 çalısana uygulanmıstır. Geçerlilik için yapılan açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda özgün ölçekte oldugu gibi 3 boyutlu, her bir boyuta ait 6 maddenin geçerli oldugu bir yapıya ulasılmıstır. Dogrulayıcı faktör analizi ile ölçegin üç faktörlü yapısının uyum iyiligi indekslerine bakılmıstır. Ölçegin bütününün iç tutarlılık katsayısı .95 bulunmustur. Ölçegin alt boyutları incelendiginde iç tutarlılık katsayıları fiziksel bütünlesme (FB) için .91, duygusal bütünlesme (DB) için .94 ve bilissel bütünlesme (BB) için .95 bulunmustur. Test yarılama yoluyla elde edilen güvenilirlik katsayısı ise .97’dir. Düzeltilmis madde toplam korelasyon katsayılarının .52-.79 arasında degistigi bulunmustur. Üst % 27 ile alt % 27’lik grupların madde ortalama puanları arasında yapılan iliskisiz t testi sonuçları, farkların tüm maddeler ve alt ölçek toplam puanları için anlamlı oldugunu göstermistir. Bu çalısmada, BÖ-TR geçerli ve güvenilir bulunmustur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-sle-butunlesme-olceg-turkce-formunun-guvenlrlk-gecerllk-calismasi.pdf
  • 1
50
60
  • Turkish

JEL Codes:

REFERENCES

References: 

Akinbode, G.A., Fagbohungbe B.O. (2011). “Gender, tenure and organisational factors as
predictors of job involvement among Nigerian workers”, Gender and Behaviour, 9(2).
Bakker, Arnold B. (Ed); Leiter, Michael P., (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of
essential theory and research., (pp. 10-24). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press, viii, 209
pp.
Brown, S. P. (1996). “A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job
involvement”, Psychological bulletin, 120(2), 235.
Büyüköztürk, S. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (8. Baskı). Pegem
Yayıncılık: Ankara.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). “Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology,
64(1), 89-136.
Çetin, B., Dogan, T., Sapmaz, F. (2010). “Olumsuz Degerlendirilme Korkusu Ölçegi Kısa
Formu’nun Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalısması”, Egitim ve Bilim,
35(156).
Drake, T.J. (2012). Assessing employee engagement: A comparison of the job engagement
scale and the utrecht work engagement scale. Colorado State University. Master Thesis.
Okur, E. & Yalçın-Özdilek, S. (2012). “Yapısal Esitlik Modeli ile Gelistirilmis Çevresel
Tutum Ölçegi”, Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 85-94.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). 22 Passion for work: work engagement versus
workaholism. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and
practice, 264.
Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). “Same same but different: Can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?”, European Journal of
Psychology, 11, 119-127.
Hongying, S. (2007). “Literature review of teacher job satisfaction”, Chinese Education &
Society, 40(5), 11-16.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kahn, W. (2010). The Essence of Engagement: Lessons from the Field. In Edward Elgar
Publishing, Inc., Handbook of Employee Engagement Perspectives, Issues, Research and
Practice . Cheltenham, UK.
Kanungo, R. N. (1983). “Work alienation: A pancultural perspective”, International Studies
of Management & Organization, 13(1/2), 119-138.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. (2001). “Job Burnout”, Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
59
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). “Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
70(1), 149-171.
Meydan, C. H., Sesen, H. (2011). Yapısal Esitlik Modellemesi: AMOS uygulamaları,
Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). “Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general
model”, Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299-326.
Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). “Reliability and validity of the workaholism battery (Work-BAT):
turkish form”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33(6), 609-618.
Raymond, T., Mjoli T. Q., (2013). “The relationship between job involvement, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment among lower-level employees at a motor-car
manufacturing company in East London, South Africa”, Journal of Business and Economic
Management, 1(2): 025-035.
Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job
satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. University of Florida).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 197.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J.A., Crawford E.R., (2010). “Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects
on Job Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 53(3). 617-635.
Saleh, S. D., & Hosek, J. (1976). “Job Involvement: Concepts and Measurements”, Academy
of Management Journal, 19(2), 213-224.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. & Bakker, A.B (2002). “The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). “Defining and measuring work engagement:
Bringing clarity to the concept. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
research. New York, US: Psychology Press, viii, 209 pp.
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2011). “Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery
concept”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39-46.
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wildermuth,Cristina de Mello e Souza. (2008). Engaged to serve: The relationship between
employee engagement and the personality of human services professionals and
paraprofessionals. Bowling Green State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 177.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com