پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 481 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,728 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 5,405,861 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,537,617 |
ویژگیهای روانسنجی نسخة فارسی مقیاس نقش شاهدان قلدری در مدرسه | ||
| مطالعات آموزشی و آموزشگاهی | ||
| دوره 11، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 31، تیر 1401، صفحه 696-675 اصل مقاله (1.16 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حسین سوری* 1؛ پروین کدیور2؛ حسین حافظی3؛ مهدی حسنوند عموزاده4 | ||
| 1استادیار، گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشکدة روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، ص. پ. 4697-19395، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2استاد، گروه روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشکدة روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استادیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکدة روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، ص. پ. 4697-19395، تهران، ایران | ||
| 4مربی، گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشکدة روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، ص. پ. 4697-19395، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف مطالعة حاضر ارائه و معرفی مقیاس نقش شاهدان در قلدری همراه با ویژگیهای روانسنجی این مقیاس در دانشآموزان است. روش پژوهش توصیفی از نوع همبستگی است. جامعة آماری دانشآموزان مقطع متوسطة دوم استان لرستان در سال تحصیلی 1398-1397 بود. نمونة آماری 617 دانشآموز (324 پسر و 293 دختر) که به روش نمونهگیری خوشهای چندمرحلهای انتخاب و به پرسشنامه پاسخ دادند. پایایی نسخة فارسی مدل چهارعاملی و سه‌عاملی مقیاس نقش شاهدان از طریق روش همسانی درونی (آلفای کرونباخ) بررسی شد. دامنة ضرایب آلفای کرونباخ خرده‌مقیاسها از 80/0 تا 91/0 در نوسان بود، همچنین، ضریب آلفای کرونباخ کل مقیاس 90/0 به دست آمد. ساختار عاملی مقیاس مدل چهارعاملی و سه‌عاملی از طریق تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تحلیل عاملی تأییدی بررسی شد. نتایج تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تأییدی مدل سه‌عاملی از برازش قابل قبولیتری برخوردار بود. با توجه به نتایج، میتوان بیان کرد نسخة فارسی مدل سه‌عاملی مقیاس نقش شاهدان خصوصیات روانسنجی مطلوبی دارد و ابزار معتبر بای استفاده در موقعیتهای پژوهشی است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| روانسنجی؛ قلدری؛ مدرسه؛ مقیاس نقش شاهدان | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Participant Role Scales in Bullying School | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| hossein souri1؛ parvin kadivar2؛ hossein hafezi3؛ mehdi hasanvand amouzadeh4 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Payame Noor University (PNU), P.O. Box: 19395-4697, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Payame Noor University (PNU), P.O. Box: 19395-4697, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 4Instructor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Payame Noor University (PNU), P.O. Box: 19395-4697, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The aim of this study was to present and introduce the scale of the Participant Role Scales in bullying with the psychometric properties of this scale in students. Method of research is descriptive of correlation type. The statistical population of the second-grade students was Lorestan province in the year 2017-2018. Sample size of 617 students (324 males and 293 females) who were selected by multi stage cluster sampling and responded to the questionnaire. The reliability of the Persian version of the 4-factor model and 3 factors of the Participant Role Scales through the internal consistency method (Cronbach's alpha) were examined. The range of Subscales Cronbach's alpha coefficients varied from 0.8 to 0.91, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the whole scale was 0.90. The factor structure of the 4-factor and 3-factor model scale was explored through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The results of the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis of the model 3 had a more acceptable fit. According to the results, Persian version of the 3-factor model of the Participant Role Scales has good psychometric properties and is a valid Instruments for use in research positions. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Bullying, Participant role scale, Psychometric, School | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
مظاهری تهرانی، محمدعلی، شیری، اسماعیل، و ولی‌پور، مصطفی (۱۳۹۴). بررسی ماهیت و شیوع قلدری در مدارس راهنمایی روستاهای شهرستان زنجان. روان‌شناسی تربیتی، ۱۱(۳۶)، 38-17.
قاسمى, وحید (1390). برآورد حجم بهینة نمونه در مدل‌هاى معادلة ساختارى و ارزیابى کفایت آن براى پژوهشگران اجتماعى. جامعه‌شناسی ایران, 12(4)، 147-126.
Andrade, C. J. D. N., & Alves, C. D. A. D. (2019). Relationship between bullying and type 1 diabetes mellitus in children and adolescents: a systematic review. de Pediatria, 95, 509-518. Banyard, V. L. (2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities. Springer. Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyber bullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 37-51. Barnett, V. J. (1999) Bystanders: Conscience and complicity during the holocaust. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Boulton, M. J., Bucci, E., & Hawker, D. D. (1999). Swedish and English secondary school pupils' attitudes towards, and conceptions of, bullying: Concurrent links with bully/victim involvement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 277-284. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136. Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., Spröber, N., Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2015). How teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 191-202. Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(2), 186-197. Choi, S., & Cho, Y. I. (2013). Influence of psychological and social factors on bystanders’ roles in school bullying among Korean-American students in the United States. School Psychology International, 34(1), 67-81. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22-36. Forsberg, C., Thornberg, R., & Samuelsson, M. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: Fourth-to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 557-576. Forsberg, C., Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Thornberg, R. (2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: a cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Research Papers in Education, 33(1), 127-142. Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. H. (2006). New participant role scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 32(4), 343-357. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary, 6(1), 1-55. Jenkins, L. N., & Nickerson, A. B. (2017). Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 281-290. Jenkins, L. N., Fredrick, S. S., & Nickerson, A. (2018). The assessment of bystander intervention in bullying: Examining measurement invariance across gender. School Psychology, 69, 73-83. Jungert, T., Piroddi, B., & Thornberg, R. (2016). Early adolescents' motivations to defend victims in school bullying and their perceptions of student–teacher relationships: A self-determination theory approach. Adolescence, 53, 75-90. Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 159-185. Kibriya, S., Xu, Z. P., & Zhang, Y. (2015). The impact of bullying on educational performance in Ghana: A bias-reducing matching approach. In 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California (No. 205409). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association & Western Agricultural Economics Association. Kirschenbaum, A. A., & Rapaport, C. (2020). Helping behavior by bystanders: Contrasting individual vs social contextual factors. Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 101816. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications. Lucas-Molina, B., Williamson, A. A., Pulido, R., & Calderón, S. (2014). Adaptation of the Participant Role Scale (PRS) in a Spanish youth sample: measurement invariance across gender and relationship with sociometric status. Interpersonal Violence, 29(16), 2904-2930. Maunder, R. E., & Crafter, S. (2017). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 13-20. Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 801-821. Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Level and change of bullying behavior during high school: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Adolescence, 36(3), 495-505. O'connell, P. A. U. L., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Adolescence, 22(4), 437-452. Oh, I., & Hazler, R. J. (2009). Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders' reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International, 30(3), 291-310. Oliveira, F. R., de Menezes, T. A., Irffi, G., & Oliveira, G. R. (2018). Bullying effect on student’s performance. EconomiA, 19(1), 57-73. Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions. Adolescence, 22(4), 453-459. Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Counteracting bullying in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. Behavioral Development, 35(5), 405-411. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1-15. Song, J., & Oh, I. (2018). Factors influencing bystanders' behavioral reactions in cyberbullying situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 273-282. Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25(2), 97-111. Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Adolescence, 36(3), 475-483. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036(1), 215-232. Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in”, and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383-396. Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 597 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 449 |
||