Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi

Salim Yılmaz; Gizem Ağır; Hande Öngün Yılmaz; Sedat Arslan; Selma Söyük

doi:10.59372/turajas.1895326

EN TR

Methodological Framework in Scale Adaptation Studies: Linguistic/Cultural Validity, Construct Validity, and Psychometric Evaluation

Abstract

The adaptation of scales developed in different languages and cultures to another culture requires a systematic, multi-stage process that goes far beyond simple linguistic translation. This review study aims to present a comprehensive methodological framework covering all stages of the scale adaptation process. The adaptation process is addressed in two main parts. The first part examines the linguistic/cultural validity process within an eight-stage model: obtaining permission and preparation, forward translation, synthesis of translations, back translation, expert committee evaluation, pretest, test-retest reliability, and the decision to proceed to the main application. Quantitative indicators including Content Validity Ratio, Content Validity Index, Modified Kappa statistic, and Fleiss' Kappa are presented for expert committee evaluation. The use of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient rather than Pearson correlation is recommended for assessing test-retest reliability. The second part addresses construct validity and psychometric evaluation. The exploratory approach (item analysis and exploratory factor analysis) is positioned as a recommended stage under certain conditions, while confirmatory approaches (particularly confirmatory factor analysis) are presented as the primary and essential stage for testing the original structure in the target culture. Four model representations—standard Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), second-order model, bifactor model, and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM)/Bifactor-ESEM—are discussed within a systematic comparison framework. Estimation method selection criteria, model fit indices, internal consistency coefficients, and bifactor model indices are detailed. Convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion-related validity, and known-groups validity are presented as supplementary evidence. Finally, measurement invariance analysis is addressed through configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance levels with empirically derived fit index change criteria. For each stage, sample size requirements, statistical method selection criteria, and decision thresholds are presented based on a synthesis of the current literature. The study aims to provide researchers with methodological consistency and reporting standardization throughout the scale adaptation process.

Keywords

Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi

Abstract

Farklı dil ve kültürlerde geliştirilmiş ölçeklerin başka bir kültüre aktarılması, basit bir dil çevirisinin ötesinde sistematik ve çok aşamalı bir süreç gerektirmektedir. Bu derleme çalışma, ölçek uyarlama sürecinin tüm aşamalarını kapsayan bütüncül bir metodolojik çerçeve sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada uyarlama süreci iki temel kısımda ele alınmıştır. Birinci kısım, dil/kültürel geçerlik sürecini sekiz aşamalı bir model çerçevesinde incelemektedir: izin ve hazırlık, ileri çeviri, çevirilerin sentezi, geri çeviri, uzman komitesi değerlendirmesi, ön test, test-tekrar test güvenirliği ve ana uygulamaya geçiş kararı. Uzman komitesi değerlendirmesinde Kapsam Geçerlik Oranı, Kapsam Geçerlik İndeksi, Modifiye Kappa istatistiği ve Fleiss’ Kappa gibi nicel göstergeler sunulmuştur. Zamansal tutarlılık yerine tekrar test güvenilirliği kullanımı önerilmektedir. İkinci kısım, yapı geçerliği ve psikometrik değerlendirme sürecini ele almaktadır. Keşifsel yaklaşım (madde analizi ve açıklayıcı faktör analizi kısımları) belirli koşullarda uygulanması önerilen bir aşama olarak konumlandırılırken, doğrulayıcı yaklaşımlar (özellikle doğrulayıcı faktör analizi) orijinal yapının hedef kültürde sınanması açısından birincil ve zorunlu aşama olarak sunulmaktadır. Doğrulayıcı aşamada standart Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), ikinci düzey model, bifaktör model ve Keşifsel Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (ESEM)/Bifaktör-ESEM olmak üzere dört model temsili sistematik bir karşılaştırma çerçevesinde tartışılmaktadır. Tahmin yöntemi seçim kriterleri, model uyum indeksleri, iç tutarlılık katsayıları ve bifaktör model indeksleri ayrıntılı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Yakınsak geçerlik, ayırt edici geçerlik, ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik ve bilinen gruplar geçerliği ek kanıt türleri olarak sunulmaktadır. Son olarak ölçüm değişmezliği analizi yapısal, metrik, skalar ve katı değişmezlik düzeylerinde ampirik olarak türetilmiş uyum indeksi değişim kriterleriyle birlikte ele alınmaktadır. Her aşama için örneklem büyüklüğü gereksinimleri, istatistiksel yöntem seçim kriterleri ve karar eşikleri güncel alan yazın sentezine dayalı olarak sunulmuştur. Çalışma, araştırmacılara ölçek uyarlama sürecinde metodolojik tutarlılık ve raporlama standardizasyonu sağlamayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

Abstract

Supporting Institution

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical Statement

This study does not involve any experimental research conducted on human or animal subjects. It is a review study based on a systematic evaluation of the existing literature. Therefore, ethical approval was not required.

Thanks

The authors would like to thank the researchers who have contributed to the literature in the field of scale adaptation and psychometric evaluation. The authors also express their gratitude to their colleagues for their scientific insights and valuable suggestions during the preparation of this study, especially Associate Professor Salim Yılmaz.

References

Asparouhov, T. ve Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3): 397-438.
Asparouhov, T. ve Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-Group Factor Analysis Alignment, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4): 495-508.
Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement Theory and Applications for the Social Sciences, Guilford Press, New York. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural Equation Modelling: Adjudging Model Fit, Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5): 815–824.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. ve Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures, Spine, 25(24): 3186–3191.
Bollen, K. ve Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective, Psychological Bulletin, 110(2): 305-314.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2. Baskı, Guilford Press, New York.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J. ve Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement Invariance, Psychological Bulletin, 105(3): 456-466.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance, Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3): 464–504.

Cheung, G. W. ve Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance, Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2): 233–255.
Cohen, J. (1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1): 37-46.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2. Baskı), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A. ve Steiger, J. H. (2007). The Insidious Effects of Failing to Include Design-Driven Correlated Residuals in Latent-Variable Covariance Structure Analysis, Psychological Methods, 12(4): 381-398.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F. ve Venaik, S. (2008). Formative Versus Reflective Measurement Models: Two Applications of Formative Measurement, Journal of Business Research, 61(12): 1250-1262.
Comrey, A. L. ve Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2. Baskı, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
Coskun Benlidayi, I. ve Gupta, L. (2024). Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation: A Critical Step in Multi-National Survey Studies, Journal of Korean Medical Science, 39(49): e336.
Cruchinho, P., López-Franco, M. D., Capelas, M. L., Almeida, S., Bennett, P. M., Miranda da Silva, M., Teixeira, G., Nunes, E., Lucas, P. ve Gaspar, F. (2024). Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 17: 2701-2728.
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument Review: Getting the Most from a Panel of Experts, Applied Nursing Research, 5(4): 194–197.
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B. ve Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. ve Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing Formative Measurement Models, Journal of Business Research, 61(12): 1203-1218.
Edwards, J. R. ve Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the Nature and Direction of Relationships Between Constructs and Measures, Psychological Methods, 5(2): 155-174.
Epstein, J., Santo, R. M. ve Guillemin, F. (2015). A Review of Guidelines for Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Questionnaires Could Not Bring Out a Consensus, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4): 435-441.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement Among Many Raters, Psychological Bulletin, 76(5): 378–382.
Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50.
Gencalp, C., Baris, O., Ones, E., Sipahi, S., Kahriman, M., Cakir Bicer, N., Yilmaz, S. ve Bas, M. (2025). Psychometric Evaluation of the Turkish Version of the Beverage Intake Questionnaire-15, Frontiers in Nutrition, 12: 1721223.
Golino, H. F. ve Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory Graph Analysis: A New Approach for Estimating the Number of Dimensions in Psychological Research, PLoS ONE, 12(6): e0174035.
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C. ve Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Health-Related Quality of Life Measures: Literature Review and Proposed Guidelines, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12): 1417–1432.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, 8. Baskı, Cengage Learning, Hampshire.
Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F. ve Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1): 115–135.
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J. ve Badia, X. (1997). 'Equivalence' and the Translation and Adaptation of Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires, Quality of Life Research, 6(3): 237-247.
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J. ve Badia, X. (1998). A Model of Equivalence in the Cultural Adaptation of HRQoL Instruments: The Universalist Approach, Quality of Life Research, 7(4): 323-335.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis, Psychometrika, 30(2): 179–185.
Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1): 1–55.
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5. Baskı, Guilford Press, New York. Koo, T. K. ve Li, M. Y. (2016). A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2): 155–163.
Landis, J. R. ve Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data, Biometrics, 33(1): 159–174.
Landis, R. S., Edwards, B. D. ve Cortina, J. M. (2009). On the Practice of Allowing Correlated Residuals Among Indicators in Structural Equation Models. C. E. Lance ve R. J. Vandenberg (Ed.), Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences içinde (ss. 193-214), Routledge, New York.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity, Personnel Psychology, 28(4): 563–575.
Liu, X., Cao, P., Lai, X., Wen, J. ve Yang, Y. (2023). Assessing Essential Unidimensionality of Scales and Structural Coefficient Bias, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 83(5): 891-918.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and Quantification of Content Validity, Nursing Research, 35(6): 382-386.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M. ve Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model Modifications in Covariance Structure Analysis: The Problem of Capitalization on Chance, Psychological Bulletin, 111(3): 490-504.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample Size in Factor Analysis, Psychological Methods, 4(1): 84-99.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M. ve Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques, MIS Quarterly, 35(2): 293-334.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T. ve Wen, Z. (2004). In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings, Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3): 320-341.
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D. ve Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: An Integration of the Best Features of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10: 85-110.
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks Coefficient Alpha, We'll Take It from Here, Psychological Methods, 23(3): 412-433.
Mokkink, L. B., Elsman, E. B. M. ve Terwee, C. B. (2024). COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Version 2.0, Quality of Life Research, 33(4): 1045-1059.
Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K. ve Marsh, H. W. (2016a). A Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Framework for the Identification of Distinct Sources of Construct-Relevant Psychometric Multidimensionality, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1): 116-139.
Muthén, B. ve Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling: A More Flexible Representation of Substantive Theory, Psychological Methods, 17(3): 313–335.
Noori Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2023). Impact of Factor Rotation on Q-Methodology Analysis, PLOS ONE, 18(9): e0290728.
Polit, D. F. ve Beck, C. T. (2006). The Content Validity Index: Are You Sure You Know What's Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations, Research in Nursing and Health, 29(5): 489-497.
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T. ve Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an Acceptable Indicator of Content Validity? Appraisal and Recommendations, Research in Nursing and Health, 30(4): 459-467.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
Pornprasertmanit, S., Miller, P., Schoemann, A. M. ve Jorgensen, T. D. (2025). simsem: Simulated Structural Equation Modeling (Sürüm 0.5-17) [R paketi]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=simsem (Erişim tarihi: 15/02/2025)
Putnick, D. L. ve Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research, Developmental Review, 41: 71-90.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of Composite Reliability for Congeneric Measures, Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2): 173-184.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5): 667-696.
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F. ve Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and Structural Coefficient Bias in Structural Equation Modeling: A Bifactor Perspective, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1): 5-26.
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É. ve Savalei, V. (2012). When Can Categorical Variables Be Treated as Continuous? A Comparison of Robust Continuous and Categorical SEM Estimation Methods Under Suboptimal Conditions, Psychological Methods, 17(3): 354–373.
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P. ve Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Evaluating Bifactor Models: Calculating and Interpreting Statistical Indices, Psychological Methods, 21(2): 137-150.
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P. ve Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Applying Bifactor Statistical Indices in the Evaluation of Psychological Measures, Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3): 223-237.
Rosseel, Y., Jorgensen, T. D. ve De Wilde, L. (2025). lavaan: Latent Variable Analysis (Sürüm 0.6-20) [R paketi]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.lavaan (Erişim tarihi: 15/02/2025)
Rönkkö, M. ve Cho, E. (2022). An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity, Organizational Research Methods, 25(1): 6-14.
Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A. ve Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating Model Fit With Ordered Categorical Data Within a Measurement Invariance Framework: A Comparison of Estimators, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2): 167-180.
Schweizer, K., Gold, A., Krampen, D. ve Troche, S. (2024). Conceptualizing Correlated Residuals as Item-Level Method Effects in Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(5): 869-886.
Shrout, P. E. ve Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability, Psychological Bulletin, 86(2): 420-428.
Sousa, V. D. ve Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, Adaptation and Validation of Instruments or Scales for Use in Cross-Cultural Health Care Research: A Clear and User-Friendly Guideline, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2): 268-274.
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R. ve Cairney, J. (2015). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 5. Baskı, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L. ve Rutkowski, D. (2020). Multiple-Group Invariance with Categorical Outcomes Using Updated Guidelines: An Illustration Using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools Packages, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1): 111-130.
Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics, 7. Baskı, Pearson, Boston.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M. ve de Vet, H. C. W. (2007). Quality Criteria Were Proposed for Measurement Properties of Health Status Questionnaires, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1): 34-42.
Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W. ve Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN Methodology for Evaluating the Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Delphi Study, Quality of Life Research, 27(5): 1159-1170.
Uluslararası Test Komisyonu [ITC] (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (2nd Edition), International Journal of Testing, 18(2): 101–134.
Vandenberg, R. J. ve Lance, C. E. (2000). A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research, Organizational Research Methods, 3(1): 4-70.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the Number of Components from the Matrix of Partial Correlations, Psychometrika, 41(3): 321–327.
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R. ve Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1): 119-134.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F. ve Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies, Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, (Ed: Hoyle, R. H.), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Widaman, K. F. ve Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the Measurement Invariance of Psychological Instruments: Applications in the Substance Use Domain. K. J. Bryant, M. Windle ve S. G. West (Ed.), The Science of Prevention: Methodological Advances from Alcohol and Substance Abuse Research içinde (ss. 281-324), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A. ve Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures, Value in Health, 8(2): 94-104.
Willett, W. (2013). Nutritional Epidemiology, 3. Baskı, Oxford University Press, New York.
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Wilson, F. R., Pan, W. ve Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3): 197–210.
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L. ve Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6): 913–934.
Worthington, R. L. ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices, The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6): 806-838.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Cross-Cultural Scale Adaptation

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Salim Yılmaz
0000-0003-2405-5084
Türkiye

Gizem Ağır ^*
0000-0001-6612-6253
Türkiye

Hande Öngün Yılmaz
0000-0002-3497-567X
Türkiye

Sedat Arslan
0000-0002-3356-7332
Türkiye

Selma Söyük
0000-0001-9822-9417
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 30, 2026

Submission Date

February 22, 2026

Acceptance Date

April 19, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 9 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.59372/turajas.1895326

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA63HX22SS

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Yılmaz, S., Ağır, G., Öngün Yılmaz, H., Arslan, S., & Söyük, S. (2026). Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science, 9(1), 84-108. https://doi.org/10.59372/turajas.1895326

AMA

1.Yılmaz S, Ağır G, Öngün Yılmaz H, Arslan S, Söyük S. Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi. TURAJAS. 2026;9(1):84-108. doi:10.59372/turajas.1895326

Chicago

Yılmaz, Salim, Gizem Ağır, Hande Öngün Yılmaz, Sedat Arslan, and Selma Söyük. 2026. “Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik Ve Güvenilirlik Için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi”. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science 9 (1): 84-108. https://doi.org/10.59372/turajas.1895326.

EndNote

Yılmaz S, Ağır G, Öngün Yılmaz H, Arslan S, Söyük S (April 1, 2026) Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science 9 1 84–108.

IEEE

[1]S. Yılmaz, G. Ağır, H. Öngün Yılmaz, S. Arslan, and S. Söyük, “Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi”, TURAJAS, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 84–108, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.59372/turajas.1895326.

ISNAD

Yılmaz, Salim - Ağır, Gizem - Öngün Yılmaz, Hande - Arslan, Sedat - Söyük, Selma. “Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik Ve Güvenilirlik Için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi”. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science 9/1 (April 1, 2026): 84-108. https://doi.org/10.59372/turajas.1895326.

JAMA

1.Yılmaz S, Ağır G, Öngün Yılmaz H, Arslan S, Söyük S. Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi. TURAJAS. 2026;9:84–108.

MLA

Yılmaz, Salim, et al. “Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik Ve Güvenilirlik Için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi”. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science, vol. 9, no. 1, Apr. 2026, pp. 84-108, doi:10.59372/turajas.1895326.

Vancouver

1.Salim Yılmaz, Gizem Ağır, Hande Öngün Yılmaz, Sedat Arslan, Selma Söyük. Ölçek Uyarlama Araştırmalarında Metodolojik Çerçeve: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik için Sistematik Bir Değerlendirme Rehberi. TURAJAS. 2026 Apr. 1;9(1):84-108. doi:10.59372/turajas.1895326