ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The validity and reliability study of the Adolescent Prosociality Scale was aimed to gain a new measurement tool to determine the prosocial tendencies of adolescents in the relevant field.
Materials and Methods:
In the first stage of the study, 14 items were written that were positive and 11 were reversed, and the Content Validity Rates were determined by Davis technique with 12 field experts. In the second stage, exploratory factor analysis was performed with 247 adolescents. In the third stage, confirmatory factor analysis was done with 323 adolescents and the reliability of the study was examined with Cronbach Alpha and Split Half methods. Reliability and validity studies of the scale were performed with 570 data in total.
Results:
A two-factor scale with 20 factors, namely “Inner Prosocial” and “External Prosocial”, was obtained from the study. Cronbach Alpha reliability of the scale was found to be 795.
Conclusion:
Item factor loads of the scale created and the reliability of the scale were obtained at the desired level. The high score obtained from the scale shows that the adolescents have high prosocial tendencies. The scale is suitable for adolescents aged 13 to 18 years old.
Keywords:
Prosocial, adolescence, scale development, child development.
References
1
Batson CD. These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena in The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, (Ed.) Decety J ve Ickes W. 2009; MIT Press: Cambridge.
2
Decety J, Jackson PL. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2004;3:71-100.
3
Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, Wagner E, Chapman M. Development of Concern for Others. Developmental Psychology. 1992;28:126-136.
4
Eisenberg N. The Development of Prosocial Behavior. 1982; New York: Academic Press.
5
Benenson JF, Pascoe J, Radmore N. Children’s Altruistic Behavior in the Dictator Game. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2007;28:168-175.
6
Carlo G, Hausmann A, Christiansen S, Randall BA. Sociocognitive and Behavioral Correlates of a Measure of Prosocial Tendencies for Adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2003;23:107-134.
7
Ekin S. Lise Öğrencilerinin Müzikten Etkilenim Düzeyleriyle Prososyal Eğilimleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. 2019; Hacettepe Üniversitesi: Ankara.
8
Yurdu H. İyilik Hali İle Özgecilik Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Düşünce – Yorum Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi. 2014;7:271-288.
9
House BR, Silk JB, Henrich J, Barrett HC, Scelza BA, Boyette AH, Hewlett BS, McElreath R, Laurence S. Ontogeny of Prosocial Behavior Across Diverse Societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110:14586-14591.
10
Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Guthrie IK, Murphy BC, Shepard SA. Age Changes in Prosocial Responding and Moral Reasoning in Adolescence and Early Adulthood. J Res Adolesc. 2005;15:235-260.
11
Fabes RA, Eisenberg N. Meta-analyses of Age and Sex Differences in Children’s and Adolescents’ Prosocial Behavior. Handbook of Child Psychology. 1998;3:1-29.
12
Karylowski J. Doing Good to Feel Good v. Doing Good to Make Others Feel Good: Some Child-Rearing Antecedents. School Psychology International. 1982;3:149-156.
13
Çalık T, Özbay Y, Özer A, Kurt T, Kandemir M. İlköğretim Okulu Öğrencilerinin Zorbalık Statülerinin Okul İklimi, Prososyal Davranışlar, Temel İhtiyaçlar ve Cinsiyet Değişkenlerine Göre İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 2009;15:555-576.
14
Blakemore S-J, Mills KL. Is Adolescence a Sensitive Period for Sociocultural Processing? Annual Review of Psychology. 2014;65:187-207.
15
Carlo G, Randall BA. The Development of a Measure of Prosocial Behaviors for Late Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2002;31:31-44.
16
Fabes RA, Carlo G, Kupanoff K, Laible D. Early Adolescence and Prosocial/Moral Behavior I: The Role of Individual Processes. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 1999;19:5-16.
17
Kumru A, Carlo G, Edwards CP. Olumlu Sosyal Davranışlarin İlişkisel, Kültürel, Bilişsel ve Duyuşsal Bazı Değişkenlerle İlişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi. 2004;19:109-125.
18
Tavşancıl E, Keser H. İnternete Yönelik Likert Tipi Bir Tutum Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES). 2001;34:45-60.
19
Davis LL. Instrument Review: Getting the Most from a Panel of Experts. Applied Nursing Research. 1992;5:194-197.
20
Kılıç Çakmak E, Çebi A, Kan A. Developing a “Social Presence Scale” for E-learning Environments. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 2014;14:764-768.
21
Doğan N, Soysal S, Karaman H. Aynı Örnekleme Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi Uygulanabilir Mi? (Ed.) Demirel S. Küreselleşen Dünyada Eğitim. 2017; Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
22
Comrey AL. Factor-Analytic Methods of Scale Development in Personality and Clinical Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1988;56:754-761.
23
Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). 2005; London: SAGE Publication. 2005:619-680.
24
Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory (3th ed.). 1994; New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
25
Gorsuch RL. Exploratory Factor Analysis, in Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, (Ed.) Nesselroade JR, Cattell RB. 1988;231-258.
26
Tavşancıl E. Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. 2002; Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
27
Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparison of Five Rules for Determining the Number of Components to Retain. Psychological Bulletin. 1986;99:432-442.
28
Kline P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. 1994; London: Routledge.
29
Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. 2007; Ankara: Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
30
Kline R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2015; New York: Guilford Publications.
31
Karagöz Y, Kösterelioğlu İ. İletişim Becerileri Değerlendirme Ölçeğinin Faktör Analizi Metodu ile Geliştirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2008;21:81-98.
32
Karagöz Y, Demir M, Günel Y. Araç Kasko Sigortası Yaptırırken Şirket Seçimini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Tespitine Yönelik Ölçek Geliştirilmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2019;22:227-254.
33
Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 2012;1-710.
34
Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları [5. baskı]. 2018;5:324.
35
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics (5th International ed.). 2006; Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
36
Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (10. Baskı). 2008; Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık: 427. 2008;10:446.
37
Bayhan P. Erken Çocukluk Döneminde Değerlendirme. 2017; Ankara: Hedef CS: 168.
38
Çepni S. Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. 2010; 5.baskı Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
39
Ebrinç S. Psikiyatrik Derecelendirme Ölçekleri ve Klinik Çalışmalarda Kullanımı. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni. 2000;10:109-116.
40
Tittle CR, Hill RJ. Attitude measurement and prediction of behavior: an evaluation of conditions and measurement techniques. Sociometry. 1967;30:199-213.
41
Eisenberg N, Mussen PH. The Roots of Prosocial Behavior in Children. Cambridge Studies in Social and Emotional Development. 1989; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
