Adaptation of Collective Moral Disengagement Scale into Turkish Culture for Adolescents

Abstract

In this study, reliability and validity are assessed for a Turkish culture adaptation of the Collective Moral Disengagement Scale for Adolescents. The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, translation, exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency coefficients, and test-retest method were performed; in the second stage, confirmatory factor analysis, and compliance validation study were conducted. In the first stage of the research, a total of 339 adolescents and in the second stage, 283 adolescents participated. At the end of the exploratory factor analysis performed in the first stage of the research, it is observed that the CMDS (Collective Moral Disengagement Scale for Adolescents) explained 35 percent of total variance. The factor loadings of the scale items ranged from 0.41 to 0.76. In addition, the internal consistency coefficient was found as 0.86 and test-retest reliability coefficient as 0.86 at the end of the analysis made for the CMDS's reliability in the first stage. At the end of confirmatory factor analysis made in the second stage, acceptable fit indices were obtained (χ 2 =288.07, df= 90, χ 2 /df= 3.20, RMSEA=0.08, RMR=0.13, SRMR=0.06, GFI=0.89, AGFI=0.85, CFI=0.94, NNFI=0.93). Within the compliance validity of CMDS, correlation coefficients of Bullying Scale and Bullying Sub-scale (0.41) and the Victim Subscale (0.47) were examined. In conclusion, we can say that the Turkish form of 15-item Collective Moral Disengagement Scale for Adolescents is valid and reliable.

Longitudinal Links of Individual and Collective Morality with Adolescents’ Peer Aggression

“…For each item students were asked “In your classroom, how many students think that… [item]” on the following 5-point scale: “None,” “About a quarter (25%),” “About a half (50%),” “About three quarters (75%),” and “Everyone.” The validation study demonstrated good factorial and criterion validity of the scale’s scores (Gini, Pozzoli, & Bussey, 2014 ). Further support for its validity has been found in other countries, such as Australia (Allison & Bussey, 2017 ), Czech Republic (Kollerová et al, 2018 ), and Turkey (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016 ).…”

“…The validation study demonstrated good factorial and criterion validity of the scale's scores (Gini, Pozzoli, & Bussey, 2014). Further (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016). Following the original procedure, for each participant item scores were averaged to form a perceived collective moral disengagement score (α = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.86-0.88, ω = 0.87), to be used at the individual level.…”

Individual moral disengagement and bystander behavior in bullying: The role of moral distress and collective moral disengagement.

“…[item]” on the following 5-point scale: “None,” “About a quarter (25%),” “About half (50%),” “About three quarters (75%),” and “Everyone.” In the validation study (Gini et al, 2014), confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit for the unidimensional structure of the scale, and the scale scores exhibited good construct and criterion validity. The scale factor structure has been shown to be gender invariant (Gini et al, 2014; Kollerová, Soukup, & Gini, 2018), and high test–retest reliability has been reported for it (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016). The scale has also been translated and validated in other languages, such as Czech, Swedish, and Turkish (Alsaadi et al, 2018; Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016; Kollerová et al, 2018).…”

“…The scale factor structure has been shown to be gender invariant (Gini et al, 2014; Kollerová, Soukup, & Gini, 2018), and high test–retest reliability has been reported for it (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016). The scale has also been translated and validated in other languages, such as Czech, Swedish, and Turkish (Alsaadi et al, 2018; Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016; Kollerová et al, 2018). Following the original procedure, for each participant, item scores were averaged to form a perceived collective moral disengagement score (α = .84, 95% CI [.83, .86]).…”

Propiedades psicométricas de una escala para medir desconexión moral en niños mexicanos

“…Sin embargo, si bien hay varios estudios enfocados en la validación de escalas de medición de la desconexión moral (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016;Gini, Pozzoli & Bussey, 2015;Rubio-Garay, Amor & Carrasco, 2017) aún persisten controversias respecto a la medición de este constructo (Greenhalgh, Watt & Schutte, 2015), sobre todo relacionadas con: (a) la estructura interna de las escalas, porque aunque la escala original mide ocho mecanismos de desconexión moral (Bandura et al, 1996), se han reportado modelos unidimensionales (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016;Pelton, Gound, Forehand & Brody, 2004), o de tres (Rubio-Garay et al, 2017) y cuatro factores (Newton, Stapinski, Champion, Teesson & Bussey, 2016); (b) la medición de la desconexión moral, debido a que se evalúa tanto de forma general como de forma contextual a una situación; y (c) las técnicas de medición, ya que se ha evaluado el constructo mediante dilemas éticos (Paulino Avilés & Fonseca, 2016;Stevens, Deuling & Armenakis, 2012), entrevistas (De Graaff, Schut, Verweij, Vermetten & Giebels, 2016) y escalas de auto-reporte tipo Likert (Çapan & Bakioglu, 2016;Newton et al, 2016;Paciello et al, 2008).…”