PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(1) 277-286

The Scale of Ideational and Social Contribution of Art to Politics: A Validity and Reliability Study

İrfan Nihan Demirel

pp. 277 - 286   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.19   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1911-21-0009.R1

Published online: February 09, 2020  |   Number of Views: 44  |  Number of Download: 212


Abstract

The aim of the study is to develop a valid and reliable scale in order to determine the ideational and social contribution of art to politics. The 5 point likert scale was applied to a total of 891 university students studying in different departments of a state university. As a result of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), it was found that the scale consisted of twelve items and was collected under two sub-factors. Factor loads of the scale items were found to range between .571 and .818. In addition, the variance rate explained by two factors was calculated as 58.397%. The x2/df value of the scale was calculated as 1,944. Other concordance index values were calculated as CFI= .962, TLI= .952, RMSEA= .066, SRMR= .0546. The Cronbach-Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated as .893 for the overall scale; .862 for the first sub-factor and .842 for the second sub-factor. Item-total score correlation values of the scale items ranged between .538 and .655. These results show that SISCAP can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords: Art, Politics, Ideational and social contribution, Validity, Reliability


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Demirel, I.N. (2020). The Scale of Ideational and Social Contribution of Art to Politics: A Validity and Reliability Study . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 277-286. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.19

Harvard
Demirel, I. (2020). The Scale of Ideational and Social Contribution of Art to Politics: A Validity and Reliability Study . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), pp. 277-286.

Chicago 16th edition
Demirel, Irfan Nihan (2020). "The Scale of Ideational and Social Contribution of Art to Politics: A Validity and Reliability Study ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (1):277-286. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.19.

References
  1. Akyüz, Ü. (2009), Siyaset ve ahlak. Yasama Dergisi, 11, 93-129. [Google Scholar]
  2. Albayrak, S. & Gülnar, E. (2018). Cinsiyetçi olayları belirleme ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(22), 4155-4163. [Google Scholar]
  3. Altıntop, C. (2016). Ebû Nasr El- Farabî’nin ideal devlet anlayışı. Akademia Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 48-62. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S. & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA-A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(5), 1-7. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakır Ayğar, B. & Uzun, B. (2017). Sosyal Medya Bağımlılığı Ölçeği’nin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışmaları. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 5, 507-525. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrett, P. (2007).  Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824. [Google Scholar]
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (18nd ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  8. Can, A. (2014). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (2nd ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  9. Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. (3nd ed.). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık. [Google Scholar]
  10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  11. Demirel, İ. N. (2019). Sanat ve estetik değer eğitimi. Salih Zeki Genç & Adem Beldağ (Ed.). in the Karakter ve değer eğitimi (p. 267-278). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  12. Demirel, I. N. & Altintas, O. (2012). Relationship between art and politics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 444-448. [Google Scholar]
  13. Devarajooh, C. & Chinna, K. (2017). Depression, distress and self-efficacy: The impact on diabetes self-care practices. PLoS ONE, 12(3), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  14. Erbay, M. (1997). Plastik sanatlar eğitimi’ nin gelişimi (1nd ed.). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  15. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London–Thousand Oaks–New Delhi: Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  16. Floyd, F. J. & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hadi, N., Abdullah, N. & Sentosa, I. (2016). An easy approach to exploratory factor analysis: Marketing perspective. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(1), 215-223. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 104-121. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B. & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement ınstruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100-120.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (20nd ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıyım. [Google Scholar]
  24. Korkmaz, F. D. (2018). Sanat siyaset ilişkisi bağlamında politik imge. Journal of Arts, 1(2), 25-38. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kovancılar, B. & Kahriman H. (2007), Devlet-Sanat İlişkisi: Sanat Desteklerinin Dayandığı Argümanlar. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 44, 21-33. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kreft, L. (2009). Sanat ve siyaset, kültür çağinda sanat ve kültürel politika (Trans. M.  Tüzel). (2nd ed.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  27. McDonald, R. P. & Ho, R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mishra, S., Sharma, M., Sharma, R. C., Singh, A. & Thakur, A. (2016). Development of a scale to measure faculty attitude towards open educational resources. Open Praxis, 8(1), 55–69. [Google Scholar]
  29. Örnek, Ü. (2011). Sanat ve siyaset. It has been taken from http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/siyaset-ve-sanat/Blog/?BlogNo=320553 on 31.10.2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analazi (Çok değişkenli analizler) (2nd ed.). Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  31. Özden, Y. (2008). Öğrenme ve öğretme (8nd ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  32. Santor, D. A., Haggerty, J. L., Lévesque, J-F., Burge, F., Beaulieu, M-D., Gass, D. & Pineault, R. (2011). An overview of confirmatory factor analysis and item response analysis applied to instruments to evaluate primary healthcare. Healthcare Policy, 7, 79-92. [Google Scholar]
  33. Scherer, R. F. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Report, 62(3), 763-770. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schriesheim, C. & Hinkin, T. R. (1993). Influence Tactics Used by Subordinates: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis and Refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson Subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246-257. [Google Scholar]
  35. Shen, M., Hu, M. & Sun, Z. (2016). Development and validation of brief scales to measure emotional and behavioural problems among Chinese adolescents. BMJ Open, 7, e012961. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, F. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. [Google Scholar]
  37. Taherdoost, H., Sahibuddin, S. & Jalaliyoon, N. (2014). Exploratory Factor Analysis; Concepts and Theory. Advances in Applied and Pure Mathematics. 375-382. It has been taken from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1bd8/bbd66524ccf605c879982cd35ef3a3d52160.pdf on 27.10.2019.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Tekin, A. & Polat, E. (2016). A scale for e-content preparation skills: Development, validity and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 143-160. [Google Scholar]
  39. Terzi, S. (2008). 12 Eylül 1980 sonrasi sanat-siyaset ilişkisi ve plastik sanatlara etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tezbaşaran, A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazirlama klavuzu. Türk Psikologlar Derneği. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tezbaşaran, E. & Yiğit, R. (2015). A study on developing attitude scale towards nurses. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12-2(24), 69-80. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ünver, E. (2002), Sanat eğitimi. (1. bs.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. [Google Scholar]
  43. Xiao, J. J. & Dew, J. (2011). The financial management behavior scale: Development and validation. Journal of Financial Counseling and Plannin, 22(1), 43-59. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yang, C. L., Yu, C. H. & Chen, C. H. (2013). Development and validation of the postpartum sleep quality scale. Journal of Nursing Research, 21(2),148–154.  [Google Scholar]
  45. Yong, A. G. & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94. [Google Scholar]