Siber Şiddet ile İlgili İki Ölçeğin Geçerliliği ve Güvenilirliği: Siber Obsesif Takip Ölçeği (SOTÖ) ve Siber Flört Şiddeti Ölçeğinin (SFŞÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlanması / The Validity and Reliability Studies of the Scales of Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit (COPS) and Cyber Dating Abuse (CDAS): Adaptation to Turkish

Erol Uğur; Muhammed Akat; Mustafa Savcı; Mustafa Ercengız

doi:10.19160/e-ijer.1041545

TR EN

Siber Şiddet ile İlgili İki Ölçeğin Geçerliliği ve Güvenilirliği: Siber Obsesif Takip Ölçeği (SOTÖ) ve Siber Flört Şiddeti Ölçeğinin (SFŞÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlanması / The Validity and Reliability Studies of the Scales of Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit (COPS) and Cyber Dating Abuse (CDAS): Adaptation to Turkish

Öz

Bu çalışmada Siber Obsesif Takip Ölçeği (SOTÖ) ve Siber Flört Şiddeti Ölçeği (SFŞÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın verileri, SOTÖ’nün çalışma grubu 405 üniversite öğrencisi (244 kadın ve 161 erkek) ve SFŞÖ’nün çalışma grubu 344 üniversite öğrencisi (204 kadın ve 140 erkek) olmak üzere toplam 749 kişiden elde edilmiştir. Çalışmanın verileri Siber Obsesif Takip Ölçeği (SOTÖ), Siber Flört Şiddeti Ölçeği (SFŞÖ) ve Kişisel Bilgi Formu kullanılarak toplanmıştır. SOTÖ ve SFŞÖ’nün yapı geçerliği Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. Ölçeklerin güvenirliği Cronbach α iç tutarlık güvenirlik katsayısı ile incelenmiştir. AFA’ya göre SOTÖ’nün Türkçe formunda toplam 15 maddeden oluşan üç faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. SOTÖ’nün DFA ile test edilen 3 faktörlü 15 maddelik yapısının kabul edilebilir uyum indeksi değerlerine sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. DFA sonucunda SOTÖ modelinin doğrulandığı görülmüştür. SFŞÖ’nün AFA sonuçları incelendiğinde SFŞÖ’nün Zorbalık ölçeğinin 11 madde ve iki alt boyuttan oluştuğu; SFŞÖ’nün Mağduriyet Ölçeğinin ise 11 maddelik tek boyuttan oluştuğu görülmüştür. Son aşamada SFŞÖ’nün Zorbalık ve Mağduriyet ölçeklerindeki 7 ortak madde üzerinden tekrarlanan AFA’ya göre, SFŞÖ’nün Türkçe formunun 7 maddeden oluşan tek faktörlü bir yapıda olduğu belirlenmiştir. 7 maddelik SFŞÖ Kısa Formu için yapılan DFA sonucunda, Zorbalık ve Mağduriyet modellerinin her ikisinin de kabul edilebilir uyum indeksi değerlerine sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Güvenirlik analizine göre SOTÖ’nün Cronbach α iç tutarlık güvenirlik katsayısı ölçeğin bütünü için .79; SFŞÖ’nün Cronbach α iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayısı Zorbalık Ölçeği için .78 ve Mağduriyet Ölçeği için .87 olarak saptanmıştır. SOTÖ ve SFŞÖ’nün geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerinden elde edilen bulgular bir arada ele alındığında, her iki ölçeğin siber şiddeti (obsesif takip ve flört şiddeti) ölçen geçerli ve güvenilir birer ölçme aracı olduğu ifade edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

The Validity and Reliability Studies of the Scales of Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit (COPS) and Cyber Dating Abuse (CDAS): Adaptation to Turkish / Siber Şiddet ile İlgili İki Ölçeğin Geçerliliği ve Güvenilirliği: Siber Obsesif Takip Ölçeği (SOTÖ) ve Siber Flört Şiddeti Ölçeğinin (SFŞÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Abstract

In the current study, the scales of Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit (COPS) and Cyber Dating Abuse (CDAS) were adapted to Turkish culture. The data of this study were obtained from a total of 749 participants. The study group of COPS consists of 405 university students (244 women and 161 men), and the study group of CDAS consists of 344 university students (204 women and 140 men). The data of the study were collected using the COPS, CDAS and the Personal Information Form. The construct validity of COPS and CDAS was tested by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The reliability of the instruments was examined according to Cronbach's alpha. According to EFA results of the CDAS, it is seen that the Perpetration scale of the CDAS consists of 11 items and two sub-dimensions; it was seen that the Victimization Scale of the CDAS consists of a single dimension with 11 items. According to EFA, which was repeated over 7 common items of Perpetration and Victimization Scales, it was determined that the Turkish form of the CDAS had a single factor structure consisting of 7 items. As a result of CFA for the 7-item CDAS, it was determined that both Perpetration and victimization models have acceptable fit index values. According to the reliability analysis, the Cronbach’s α internal consistency reliability coefficient of COPS was 0.79 for the whole scale. The Cronbach’s α internal consistency reliability coefficient of the CDAS was determined as 0.78 for the Perpetration Scale and 0.87 for the Victimization Scale. When the analyzes of the validity and reliability of the COPS and CDAS are evaluated as a whole, it can be said that these scales are valid and reliable instruments that measures cyber violence.

Keywords

References

Barlett, C.P., Gentile, D.A., Chng, G., Li, D., & Chamberlin, K. (2018). Social media use and cyberbullying perpetration: A longitudinal analysis. Violence and Gender, 5(3), 191-197.
Björklund, K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Sheridan, L., & Roberts, K. (2010). Coping with stalking among university students. Violence and Victims, 25(3), 395-408.
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116(2), 565-585.
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., Pereda, N., & Calvete, E. (2015). The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 358-365.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2002). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1162-1167.
Büyüköztürk Ş. (2016). Veri analizi el kitabı. (22. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Caridade, S., Braga, T., & Borrajo, E. (2019). Cyber dating abuse (CDA): Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 152-168.

Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Plenum.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning,
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B.H. (1998). Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. BH Spitzberg, WR Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli SPSS ve LİSREL uygulamaları. (2. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları,
Dardis, C. M., Davin, K.R., Lietzau, S.B., & Gidycz, C.A. (2019). Disclosing unwanted pursuit victimization: indirect effects of negative reactions on PTSD symptomatology among undergraduate women. Journal of İnterpersonal Violence, 36(21-22) 10431-10453.
Dardis, C. M., Strauss, C.V., & Gidycz, C.A. (2019). The psychological toll of unwanted pursuit behaviors and intimate partner violence on undergraduate women: A dominance analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9(2), 209-220.
Donner, C. M. (2016). The gender gap and cybercrime: An examination of college students’ online offending. Victims & Offenders, 11(4), 556-577.
Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: Mental health consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27(2), 215-228.
Hancock, K., Keast, H., & Ellis, W. (2017). The impact of cyber dating abuse on self-esteem: The mediating role of emotional distress. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(2).
Kwan, I., Dickson, K., Richardson, M., MacDowall, W., Burchett, H., Stansfield, C., Brunton, G., Sutclife, K., & Thomas, J. (2020). Cyberbullying and children and young people's mental health: a systematic map of systematic reviews. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(2), 72-82.
Lancaster, M., Seibert, G.S., Cooper, A.N., May, R.W., & Fincham, F. (2020). Relationship quality in the context of cyber dating abuse: The role of attachment. Journal of Family İssues, 41(6), 739-758.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R.E., Cohen, J., & Rohling, M.L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 73-90.
Lapierre, K. R., & Dane, A.V. (2019). Cyberbullying, cyber aggression, and cyber victimization in relation to adolescents’ dating and sexual behavior: An evolutionary perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 46(1), 49-59.
Lara, L. (2020). Cyber dating abuse: Assessment, prevalence, and relationship with offline violence in young Chileans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(5), 1681-1699.
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence. Journal of İnterpersonal Violence, 33(7), 1071-1095.
Melander, L.A. (2010). College students' perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(3), 263-268.
Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Chirumbolo, A., & Baiocco, R. (2018). The cyber dating violence inventory. Validation of a new scale for online perpetration and victimization among dating partners. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 464-471.
Nabors, E.L., & Jasinski, J.L. (2009). Intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: The role of gender role and gendered violence attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 57-82. PEW Research Center. (2020, April 22). Social media fact sheet. https:// https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/
Reyns, B. W. (2010). A situational crime prevention approach to cyberstalking victimization: Preventive tactics for Internet users and online place managers. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 12(2), 99-118.
Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(8), 676-680.
Sargent, K. S., Krauss, A., Jouriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2016). Cyber victimization, psychological intimate partner violence, and problematic mental health outcomes among first-year college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(9), 545-550.
Savcı, M., & Aysan, F. A. (2019). A hypothetical model proposal for social connectedness in adolescents. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 9(54), 589-621.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W.R. (2003). What mad pursuit?: Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(4), 345-375.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 67-88.
Van Royen, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., & Adam, P. (2017). “Thinking before posting?” Reducing cyber harassment on social networking sites through a reflective message. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 345-352.
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A.N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wolford-Clevenger, C., Zapor, H., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., Elmquist, J., Brem, M., Shorey, R.C. & Stuart, G.L. (2016). An examination of the Partner Cyber Abuse Questionnaire in a college student sample. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 156-162.
World Health Organization. (2020, April 20). Understanding and addressing violence against women. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf.
Wright, M.F. (2016). Cyber victimization on college campuses: Longitudinal associations with suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Criminal Justice Review, 41(2), 190-203.
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1063-1077.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Studies on Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Erol Uğur ^*
0000-0003-1974-2621
Türkiye

Muhammed Akat
0000-0002-8543-8022
Türkiye

Mustafa Savcı
0000-0002-7025-5901
Türkiye

Mustafa Ercengız
0000-0002-6891-8462
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 30, 2022

Submission Date

December 27, 2021

Acceptance Date

March 22, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 13 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1041545

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA23GA58DG

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Uğur, E., Akat, M., Savcı, M., & Ercengız, M. (2022). Siber Şiddet ile İlgili İki Ölçeğin Geçerliliği ve Güvenilirliği: Siber Obsesif Takip Ölçeği (SOTÖ) ve Siber Flört Şiddeti Ölçeğinin (SFŞÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlanması / The Validity and Reliability Studies of the Scales of Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit (COPS) and Cyber Dating Abuse (CDAS): Adaptation to Turkish. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(3), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1041545

Öz