ساخت و بررسی ویژگی های روان سنجی مقیاس تاب آوری اقتصادی- روانی فرد (EPRS) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
هدف از پژوهش حاضر، ساخت و بررسی ویژگی های روان سنجی مقیاس تاب آوری اقتصادی روانی فرد است. روش پژوهش، توصیفی و جامعه آماری شامل کلیه شهروندان شاغل کرمان در سال 1399 است. به این منظور، ابتدا گویه های مرتبط با تاب آوری اقتصادی فردی با استفاده از پرسشنامه تاب آوری ساخته و پس از بررسی های اولیه و تعیین روایی محتوایی و نظر کارشناسان مربوطه در حوزه اقتصاد و روان شناسی به صورت ابتدایی بر یک نمونه 30 نفری از افراد نمونه اجرا شد و درنهایت، مقیاس ساخته شد. پرسشنامه تاب آوری و پرسشنامه سلامت عمومی گلدبرگ به همراه پرسشنامه اقتصادی روانی بر نمونه با تعداد 384 نفر از جامعه انتخاب شد که با روش نمونه گیری دردسترس از مناطق مختلف شهر کرمان انتخاب شدند. یافته ها: تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی این مقیاس نشان دهنده مدل سه عاملی شامل سه عامل تحلیل مسئله، خودکارآمدی و سازگاری و انعطاف پذیری است و برای تأیید ساختار این مدل از نرم افزار AMOS استفاده شد و نتایج نشان دهنده برازش مناسب مدل تک عاملی مرتبه دوم است. بررسی ضرایب پایایی و روایی نشان دهنده معتبر و روابودن این مقیاس است. نتیجه گیری: اعتبار و روایی مناسب این مقیاس می تواند مجوزی برای استفاده آن در حوزه های پژوهشی مرتبط باشد.The development and evaluation of psychometric properties of the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS)
The present study aimed to develop the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS) and evaluate its psychometric properties. To this end, a descriptive research method was used. The research population included all Kerman employed citizens in 2019. For this purpose, the items related to individual economic resilience were developed using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Then, after preliminary reviews and content validation by experts in the field of economics and psychology, the scale was piloted on a sample of 30 individuals, and the final version of the scale was constructed. The Resilience Scale, the Goldberg General Health Questionnaire, and the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS) were administered to a sample of 384 persons who were selected using convenient sampling from different regions. Results: The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the developed scale showed the three-factor model consisted of three factors including problem analysis, self-efficacy, adaptability, and flexibility. AMOS software was used to confirm the construct validity of the model, and the results showed the appropriate fit of the second-order one-factor model. The analysis of the reliability and validity indexes of the scale shows that the scale has acceptable reliability and validity. Conclusion: Given the acceptable reliability and validity indices of this scale, it can be used in related research areas. Introduction Resilience is defined as the individual's ability to adapt to threatening or unfavorable situations (Garmezy & Masten, 1991; Waller, 2001). Resilience is to recover to the initial balance or a higher level of balance (in threatening situations) and therefore leads to successful adaptation in life (Kumpfer, 1999). Connor and Davidson (2003) consider resilience to be a person's ability to cope with a biological-psychological imbalance in dangerous situations. According to the definition proposed by Connor and Davidson, resilience is not only a passive concept in the face of difficult circumstances but also active and constructive participation in one's surrounding environment. Resilience is a protective factor against mental and physical health conditions (Hu et al., 2015; MacLeod et al., 2016). Resilience in economics refers to an inherent response and adaptation of individuals and communities to risks and losses to the extent that it empowers individuals to reduce potential damages and losses (Rose, 2004). The results of a study by Briguglio, Cordina, Farrugia, and Vella (2009) showed that economic vulnerability had a negative effect and economic resilience had a positive effect on GDP per capita. There are two different perspectives about the conceptualization of psychological resilience: Psychological resilience as an outcome (Bonanno, 2012) or as an individual capacity (e.g., Liu, Reed, & Girard, 2017; Nelson, Shacham, & Ben-ari, 2016). Resilience causes people to use their abilities to achieve success and growth in life in difficult and exhausting situations, despite the risk factors, and they use these challenges and difficulties as an opportunity to empower themselves (Agaibi & Wilson, 2005). Previous studies on resilience have been formed based on two different perspectives: A static and a dynamic perspective. The static perspective considers resilience to be the ability to recover where one stops after a stressful and unpredictable situation. The dynamic perspective, which has a transcendental view of simple recovery after a shock, instead emphasizes continuous adaptation to change and the creation of new opportunities. Accordingly, resilience capacity is a capacity that continually overcomes challenges and identifies new opportunities (Richtnér & Löfsten, 2014). In recent years, various studies have been conducted for the development and assessment of psychometric properties of resilience scales in different age groups (children and adolescents, young people, adults and the elderly) and in various fields such as family, university, and members of special groups or those with special problems and disorders (Ahern, Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006; Linda & Caltabiano, 2009; Resnick & Inguito, 2011; Cassidy, 2016; Surzykiewicz, Konaszewski, & Wagnild, 2019; Hosseini & Hosseinchari, 2013; Kazeruni Zand, Sepehri Shamloo, & Mirzaeian, 2013). A review of the literature showed that no questionnaire could specifically measure a person's economic resilience and have high validity and reliability. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a researcher-made economic-psychological resilience scales with appropriate items and an acceptable level of reliability and validity. Research methodology This study employed a descriptive research design. The research population consisted of all working citizens over 18 years of age in Kerman in 2020. The reason for choosing people over 18 is that in Iran and any other country, people under 18 years of age are still economically dependent on their own family and it is not possible to accurately examine the economic resilience of this age group. The research sample was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 30 persons were selected and the developed scale was administered to them to assess the reliability of the items. Then, the final form of the scale was administered to 384 persons who were selected based on Cochran's formula and through convenient sampling from people living in all regions of the city of Kerman. Instruments TheEconomic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS): This researcher-made scale contained 18 items scored based on 5-point Likert scale (totally agree = 5, agree = 4, no comment = 3, disagree = 2, and completely disagree = 1). Only the last item was scored reversely. Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISK) : This tool was developed by Connor and Davidson by reviewing the studies in the literature from 1979 to 1991 in the United States in the field of resilience. This scale was translated and validated by Mohammadi (2005) for use in Iran. The results showed it is a single-factor scale and its reliability was measured by Cronbach's alpha method as equal to 0.89 and its validity using the correlation of each item with the total score was 0.41 to 0.64 General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ): This questionnaire was first developed in 1972 by Goldberg and Hillier and aims to differentiate between healthy and sick people (Goldberg & Hillier, 1972). The questionnaire has 60, 30, 28, and 12-item forms. The 28-item version was used in this study, which was developed by Goldberg and Hillier (1979) by running the factor analysis in its long-form. Results In general, the descriptive statistics show that economic resilience is not significantly different between the participants in terms of gender, marital status, and education, implying that these variables have no significant effect on economic resilience. To assess the content validity of the scale, 5 professors in the field of economics and 4 professors in psychology were surveyed and the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) were used. The CVR value was 0.80, and the corresponding values above 0.78 with 9 persons are acceptable. Besides, the CVI value was 85.8, which is higher than the acceptable value of 0.79. Exploratory factor analysis Before running the exploratory factor analysis, the internal consistency method was used to select the acceptable items and the items with at least a positive correlation of 0.3 were selected and the rest of the items were excluded. Besides, Item 3 with a correlation value smaller than 0.3 was omitted and the rest of the items remained in the analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the underlying structure of the scale. First, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy test was used to assess the initial fit of the data, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was used to ensure that the correlation matrix was not zero. the KMO value is higher than 0.6, and the Bartlett value (X<sup>2</sup> = 1804.14) is significant (p<0.000), indicating that there is a high correlation between the items to analyze the factors. Besides, the diameters of the anti-image correlation matrix were all greater than 0.5, indicating the suitability of the data for performing factor analysis. In the exploratory factor analysis, which was performed using the principal components analysis by varimax rotation, the component analysis showed that from the seventh component onwards, the eigenvalues and the explained variances were insignificant. The first three components covered the acceptable variances and eigenvalues. However, the rest of the components did not have acceptable variance, so other criteria such as the percent variance and, most importantly, the three, four, five, and six-factor solutions were tested to obtain a simple structure. Given the simple structure criterion and the explained variance, the best solution, i.e. the three-factor structure, was chosen. This criterion can explain 42.45% of the variances of the items. Figure 1. Scree plot Based on the results of the scree test, the eigenvalues for 3 factors are 4.91, 1.64, and 1.51, respectively, which explain 42.45% of the observed variances. Based on the results of the factor analysis and given the items related to each factor, the first factor was named as “problem analysis”, the second factor as “self-efficacy”, and the third factor as “flexibility and adaptability”. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the scale. Table 1: Absolute, comparative, and adjusted fit indices of the first order three-factor model CMIN/DF GFI AGFI RMSEA CFI 3 0/91 0/91 0/07 0/86 Table 1 presents the chi-square (CMIN/DF) value, comparative Fit Index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Since CMIN/DF ratio is equal to 3, the model is assumed to be suitable. Besides, the RMSEA value is smaller than 0.88 (RMSEA = 0.07) and the other indicators show the acceptable fit of the model, all supporting the second-order three-factor model. The reliability of the whole scale for 18 items estimated through Cronbach's alpha was 0.81. Besides, the corresponding values for the three subscales of problem analysis, self-efficacy, compatibility, and flexibility were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.58, respectively, indicating the acceptable reliability of the scale. To assess the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and Goldberg General Health Questionnaire were used. economic resilience has a positive significant correlation (r = 0.60) with resilience (p <0.000), indicating the convergence validity of the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS). Also, the general health subscales (somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, psychosocial dysfunction, and severe depression) and the overall score of general health have a negative and significant correlation with resilience (p <0.000) with the corresponding values of 0.19, 0.26, 0.29, 0.28, and 0.31, respectively. Since higher scores on the general health questionnaire indicate a decrease in mental health, the results presented in the table above concerning the negative relationship of resilience with mental health and its subscales confirm the divergent validity of the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS). Conclusion This study aimed at developing the individual economic resilience scale and validating it among working citizens in Kerman. After reviewing the related literature on resilience and economic and psychological studies related to the definitions of resilience in both disciplines, 19 items were developed and analyzed. Based on the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Item 3 was removed due to low factor loads and correlation coefficients. Besides, the scale was validated using the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). Exploratory factor analysis was run to extract the factors of the scale. The criterion for extracting the factors was the slope of the scree plot and the eigenvalues greater than 1.5 that were measured by the Varimax method. Besides, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett test of sphericity were used to assess the adequacy of the sample size. The results showed the sampling adequacy for the construct validity of the scale. The factor analysis by the Warimax method showed that the scale contains 3 factors that can explain 42.45% of the whole variance of the scale, and these factors were named problem analysis, self-efficacy, adaptability, and flexibility. Besides, confirmatory factor analysis was run to confirm the one-factor structure of the scale. and the results confirmed the second-order one-factor model for the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS). The correlation of this scale with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale shows that the developed scale has acceptable convergent and construct validity. Furthermore, the analysis of the relationship between the Goldberg General Health Questionnaire and its subscales with the Economic-Psychological Resilience Scale (EPRS) suggested acceptable discriminant validity of the scale. The assessment of the reliability index of the scale using Cronbach's alpha coefficient for 18 items showed that the reliability of the scale was 0.81. Besides, the corresponding values for the three subscales of problem analysis, self-efficacy, compatibility, and flexibility were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.58, respectively, indicating the acceptable reliability of the scale. Besides, the content validity of the scale was assessed by the experts in the two fields of psychology and educational sciences, and convergent and discriminant validity indexes of the scale were confirmed. The analysis of the reliability of the scale using Cronbach's alpha method also confirmed the reliability of the scale. One of the limitations of this study is that it was conducted on Kerman working citizens and the generalization of its findings to other countries should be done with caution. Accordingly, it is suggested that this scale be re-validated in other countries, cultures, and situations. Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis and other assessments such as predictive criterion validity and test-retest reliability were not performed, and future research can take into account these factors. * Corresponding author
تبلیغات
