|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 8
| Issue : 2 | Page : 96-106 |
|
Uskudar democratic leadership scale validity and reliability studies*
Nevzat Tarhan1, Aylin Tutgun-Unal2
1 Department of Psychiatry, NPIstanbul Neuropsychiatry Hospital, Uskudar University, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of New Media and Journalism, Faculty of Communication, Uskudar University, Istanbul, Turkey
| Date of Submission | 12-May-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 01-Jul-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 13-Aug-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Aylin Tutgun-Unal
Department of New Media and Journalism, Faculty of Communication, Uskudar University, Uskudar, Istanbul
Turkey
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/jnbs.jnbs_22_21
Background: The mightiness of the political leader, his strength, his risk-taking leadership, and his emotional contact with society plays an active role in the healthy management of society in many respects. A psychometric “democratic leadership scale” is needed to define the items to determine the limits of authoritarianism and to find the balance between using power and justice. Aims and Objectives: This research aims to conduct a validity and reliability study of a wide range of the Uskudar Democratic Leadership Scale (USDELID). Materials and Methods: Sample consists of 1010 people from Turkey. “Uskudar Political Leadership Scale-USPOLID” was used for the validity of the criteria. Results: The internal coefficient of consistency (α) of the scale was found to be .97. Analysis revealed that the scale consists of four factors. The first factor “Libertarianism/Pluralism” alone accounts for 71.81% of the variance, the second factor “Justice Orientation” accounts for 3.90% of the variance, the third factor “Participation” accounts for 3.16% of the variance, and the fourth factor “Accountability” accounts for 1.96% of the variance. These four factors, consisting of a total of 25 items, together accounted for 80.85% of the total variance. Conclusion: As a result of the studies, it was understood that the scale is valid and reliable. An item on the scale is inversely asked to ensure attention by taking part in the scale for control purposes. There has the scale emerged called the USDELID.
Keywords: Autocracy, democracy, democratic leader, reliability, validity
How to cite this article:
Tarhan N, Tutgun-Unal A. Uskudar democratic leadership scale validity and reliability studies*. J Neurobehav Sci 2021;8:96-106 |
| Introduction | |  |
Today, we are going through a period where it is justified to look with suspicion at anyone who does not act openly and transparently or reacts exaggeratedly. Unimaginable events in the human environment have sociological and psychological reflections as well as the formation of political perception. Especially periods of social mobility also raise questions about the political climate in that society and the level of democratism of the political leader.
We can say that the sociopsychological code of social conflicts in Turkey is not the right-left or lifestyle fight, but it is the tackle of classes. Managing the struggle of classes and achieving fair balance are necessary skills for strong management. If it cannot be managed, it can become a crisis and generate a trauma effect in society.
Again, the way to solve the trauma healthily is to be able to proceed with the crisis analysis and the crisis management fine. The first condition of crisis management is self-analysis; the second condition is to correct the acute situation. Third, it is to be able to analyze the root causes of the events after the acute situation has passed and then to manage the crisis. In the case of the diagnosis is wrong, so it is not possible to proceed a healthy way in treatment, so secondary traumas and crises will emerge.[1] At this point, to manage the crises in the society, it is vital for the political leader to have some administrative skills and attitude toward society.
The mightiness of the political leader, his strength, his risk-taking leadership, and his emotional connection with the society play an active role in the healthy management of many social events. According to Tarhan, the mightiness of politics, the courage of soldiers, the justice of the jurisdiction, and the sight of the society open up through the talent of the scholars. Here, it is necessary to define the mightiness. The word mightness (tr. dirayet) is a concept that has passed from Arabic to Turkish and means understanding, intelligence, and resourcefulness of subtle things.[2] The limits of autocracy should be known as much as the mightiness in a company's management or politics. Accordingly, four characteristics are mentioned when an individual is handled; (1) obeys to authority, (2) is totalitarian, is singularist, denies questioning, and is unquestionable, (3) is arbitrary. For him, monophonicity is essential. He expects you to obey the single voice without questioning it, and (4) is oppressive. These features are also methods for making quick decisions during war or in times of crisis.
Quick decision-making is also associated with obedience. People are influenced by the guidance of others in isolated environments and reveal what they see, hear, and feel as if they exist through the guidance of others and community psychology that does not exist. Hence, the so-called swarm psychology is emerging. With a sense of human obedience, in herd psychology, one can quickly, easily do things that do not conform to their core values. This automatic movement reflex occurs in uncertain and unclear situations. It is called automatic stereotyping in political psychology.[1] Hence, the person automatically moves rapidly. This is more of a thing for people who want to live life easily. Where individuality decreases and group identity is high, people do not think critically with high ideals, do not make mental inquiries and as a result, they feel safe. According to Tarhan, 80% of people are in mental comfort. Thinking, questioning is a tough task, while obeying the leader is easier and more comfortable.
The fact that leading people are endowed with several virtues is directly proportional to the ability to govern society. It is important for a leader to have charismatic, classical, and wisdom values. Because the state can be governed by a virtuous power, not by military force. That's why he must take his power from justice so that he can be effective in all segments of the population, not the elite. That is called pluralism. In a pluralist, libertarian democracy is the public free, not under fear.[3]
It is also explained by the “Trait Theory” that the leader has some accurate characteristics as well as the use of force.[4],[5] According to the trait theory, the characteristics that should be found in a successful leader are as follows: (1) intelligence covering the ability to judge and communicate verbally, (2) past achievements, (3) emotional maturity, (4) reliability, perseverance, and constant motivation for success, (5) ability to join and adapt to diverse groups, and (6) desire for status.[6]
Behavioral leadership theory tries to explain the leadership process. The fact according to the theory is that, what makes leaders successful and effective, is the behavior of the leader when leading, rather than the leadership trait.[7] Behaviors such as the way the leader communicates with his subordinates, whether he delegates authority, the way he plans and controls, the way he sets the objectives, etc., are considered as important factors that determine the effectiveness of the leader.[8]
Various models have been developed within the scope of behavioral leadership theory. One of the most important of these models is the “Ohio State University” studies. In 1945, the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University began studying leading behavior on many military and civilian executives, and two dimensions were identified in these studies, called “understanding” and “mobilizing the structure (MtS).”[9]
Concept (A): It is the level of sensitivity of the leader to his subordinates and the degree of mutual trust building. Leaders with a high level of understanding are in a friendly approach. They care about open communication and the welfare of their subordinates.
MtS: It is the degree of mission-orientedness of the leader and the level of guidance of his subordinates toward the achievement of the purpose. Such leaders give orders, spend time for planning, and make precise work-related programs.
According to the model, which is said to be independent of the two dimensions, the leader can display any of the following four types of leadership style:
- High MtS – Low concept
- High MtS – High concept
- Low MtS – Low concept
- Low MtS – High concept.
The Ohio State University's studies were followed by the University of Michigan studies and tried to establish objective criteria for the effectiveness of the leader, rather than dimensions, in determining leadership behavior.[10] Another model in behavioral leadership theories is a model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, based on the results of the researches conducted at the University of Ohio and Michigan and called an “Administrative Scale” or “Administrative Diagram.” In this model, two basic dimensions were identified that determine the effectiveness of the leader. These two dimensions are “interest in production” and “interest in man.” These two dimensions are located on a scale from 1 to 9, and 1 refers to the lowest interest and 9 refers to the highest interest. According to the authors, the combination of these two dimensions results in five types of leadership styles, expressed as poor leadership (1/1), city club leadership (1/9), mission leadership (9/1), mild-mannered leadership (5/5), and team leadership (9/9). In these styles, the team leadership (9/9) that attaches the highest importance to both production and people is expressed as the most effective leadership style.[9]
One of the most basic approaches that can be used to group the styles of leaders is to define them as authoritarian or democratic leaders. Before defining the authoritarian leader and specifying his characteristics, it would make sense to talk about and define a personality trait, so that is, authoritarianism, which affects the behavior of the leader in this sense. In its simplest definition, authoritarianism is a belief that there should be status differences within the organization and that such differences will contribute to the effective functioning of the organization.[11] Moreover Katz and Robert define authority as a force within the organization.[12]
Adorno and Altemeyer made studies to describe the characteristics of an authoritarian personality. According to the results of these studies, authoritarian people are individuals who need to use a high level of authority, demonstrate strict adherence to traditional behavior patterns, and tend to violently punish actions that are contrary to traditional behavior.[13] Such persons are individuals who obey authority, are strict, prone to the use of force, and are opposed to the use of subjective feelings.[14]
On the other hand, it is a fact that people feel safe only in a fair environment and where peace is ensured. Then again, openness and transparency are spreading rapidly at this point with today's technology. Therefore, injustice will find quickly repercussions and can cause social upheavals. For the continuity of trust, people need to feel that they will be in a fair environment. The way a leader seeks justice is democracy. Universal values of our era are “libertarianism, pluralism, openness, and reconciliation.”
There is always been a desire to dominate human psychology. A person or persons who want to retain control try to maintain this by staying within or outside moral boundaries. Being sovereign is a universal feeling, and the path to it again passes through Justice. The number of world leaders who can fairly manage a sense of hegemony is quite less. Authoritarian-prone people perceive freedom and pluralism as a threat. A person who sees himself under threat is always in fear. A person in fear begins not to trust anyone. The feared person wants to punish criminals with violence and tends to see everything as a potential threat. Thus, they increase control and restrict freedom.
They are not liked by society and are not warm. The decrease in love, respect, and trust in a society makes it difficult to organize social relations. The increase of interindividual fighter rises the disruption of social peace, push people to loneliness, and decreases economic mobility.[15]
In contrast, current psychometric scales are needed to identify the boundaries of authoritarianism, to define the items, and to find the balance between power use and justice. To meet this need, it is aimed to build up an “Uskudar Democratic Leadership Scale (USDELID)” by carrying out validity and reliability studies of the Leadership Mightiness and Dictatorship Test developed by Tarhan.[1]
| Methods | | |
The ethics committee approval has been obtained from the Uskudar University Noninterventional Research Ethics Committee (61351342/April2021-27).
For the validity and reliability studies of the USDELID, space is made up of people 18 years in age and older. In this context, the sample of the study was generated from 1010 people elder than 18 years old, reached through the Internet throughout Turkey. Since scale development studies will be carried out, various opinions indicated in the literature have been examined for the conformity of the data set to factor analysis. Accordingly, opinions are stated that the sample size should be between 100 and 250, the scale should be at least five times or ten times the number of items.[16],[17] Considering that the scale in the study consists of 25 items, the number of 1010 samples is quite sufficient. Of the 1010 people involved in the study, 50.5% were women, 48.8% were male, and seven people have not stated. When the age dispersals are examined, the youngest of the participants was 18, the eldest was 80, and the average age was 35.6.
Measurement instruments
Uskudar Political Leadership Scale (USPOLID)
Uskudar Political Leadership Scale (USPOLID), consisting of 18 items and a single factor, is the Uskudar Political Leadership Scale in Tarhan's (2017b) “Psychological War” book, and its validity and reliability study has been made in Kansu's (2021) doctoral thesis study.[15],[18] The variance rate explained by the scale of the 18-item 5 Likert type, which measures the charismatic, classical, and wisdom values of the leader, is 73.84%. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was found in the cronbach alpha coefficient of 94. In the criteria validity study of USDELID developed in this study, it was used considering that it may be associated with USDELID.
Uskudar Democratic Leadership Scale
For the USDELID validity and reliability studies, expert opinions were first obtained by generating a pool of items, and then the content validity of the scale, structure validity with factor analysis, the discriminant validity analysis, and internal consistency reliability were made.
The material pool of the scale in this study has been generated from the questions of “The Test of Mightiness in Leadership and the Dictatorship” existing in Tarhan's book “Mom, what is a 'Coup?' The Psychology of the Coup” and its reliability is tested.[1] An expert opinion inventory of the scale consisting of 25 items has been generated and submitted to the opinion of six experts. To evaluate draft scales, the expert opinion inventory includes the options “The item is appropriate to remain on the scale,” “The item may remain on the scale but is unnecessary,” and “The item is not appropriate to remain on the scale.” To provide an interdisciplinary view, the expert pool was build up with two academics from each of the fields of psychology and psychiatry, and communication with an expert from the Department of International Relations, and inventories were sent by e-mail. After that, the adaptation rates of the items were calculated using the formula proposed by Tavşancıl and Aslan (2001).[19]
Interrater reliability rates are calculated using the ratings contained in the inventory for each item. Accordingly, it was noted that the relevant item does not stay below 70, scoring between 0 and 1. Furthermore, according to the opinions of experts, the items have been revised and arranged in terms of spelling and grammar.
The 25-item draft scale was rated as “I Disagree at All,” “I Agree with a Little Bit,” “I Moderately Agree,” “I Agree Very Much,” and “I Fully Agree” without the item being eliminated after expert opinions and was distributed to participants through an online survey in February 2021 according to the principle of volunteerism. After the data obtaining phase, the explanatory factor analysis phase has been started.
The exploratory factor analysis is frequently applied as one of the statistical calculation techniques performed in line with a large number of variables within the scope of the structure validity of scale development. Bartlett test and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test specified in the literature were applied to test the suitability of the data set for factor analysis before dynamic factor analysis was performed.[20] The fact that the KMO value is 90 and above is considered as “excellent,” to be in the range of 80 to 89 as “very good,” to be in the range of 70 to 79 as “good,” to be in the range of 60 to 69 as “average,” to be in the range of, 50 to 59 as “weak,” and less than this as “unacceptable.”[16],[21] Furthermore, is expected that the value of Bartlett Sphericity will be meaningful.
With factor analysis, which is made during the structure validity phase of the scales as the factor, in other words, the number of dimensions can be determined and the eigenvalue statistics are used for this purpose. According to the Eigenvalue statistic, factors whose value is usually ≥1 are taken into account.[22] If the researcher wants to build up his distinction based on the subject, he can also manually determine the number of factors and reveal a structure according to the suitability of the variance ratios described by item loads. It is ideal when the variance rate revealed by factor analysis varies between 40% and 60% in social sciences.[20] On the other hand, in the structure validity studies of the scale, correlation values are looked at in the relationships of factors with each other and with the total. When interpreting correlation values, the relationshiP value between 30 and 70 is “average;” values above 70 indicate a “high” relationship, and a “weak” relationship if it is below 30.[20]
Discriminant validity studies are carried out to determine whether the items on the scales of the property to be measured are suitable and the item discriminant index is calculated. Accordingly, the answers given to each question are sorted as points and 27% of the upper group and subgroup are taken and the difference between the two groups is looked at by independent group t-test. The results reinforce validity studies by giving an idea of the internal consistency of the scale.[20] Thus, in this study, two separate groups of 272 participants from 1010 participants were taken, and the difference was examined.
Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated by analyzing the internal consistency of the item according to the item variants during the reliability studies phase. As a result of the studies carried out, the validity and reliability of USDELID were revealed.
Implementation
The data obtaining were carried out according to the principle of volunteerism through an online survey between February 1st and 7th, 2021. The study group consisted of people aged 18 and elder through randomly selected sampling. The USDELID items where their validity and reliability have been made, have been generated from the questions of “The Test of Mightiness in Leadership and the Dictatorship” existing in Tarhan's book “Mom, what is a 'Coup?' The Psychology of the Coup.”[1] Attendees were given an online questionnaire consisting of the Uskudar Political Leadership Scale and USDELID questions. An average of 10 min to complete the applied survey was enough.
Data analysis
Explanatory factor analysis was applied in USDELID structure validity studies. Twenty-seven percent slices were taken from the upper group and the lower group in the discrimination validity studies, and the difference between the two groups was looked at with an independent group t-test. The reliability coefficient of the scales was determined by the Cronbach alpha value. SPSS 26.0 (SPSS 26.0 statistical program by IBM was used for all validity and reliability analyses)statistical program was used for all validity and reliability analyses.
| Results | | |
Validity and Reliability Studies of the Democratic Leadership Scale
In this part of the study, evaluations were made for the USDELID. Content validity of the scale, structure validity, discrimination validity, and reliability studies are contained within.
Content validity
The USDELID item pool was formed from 25 items in the first stage and presented to expert opinions. To include interdisciplinary views, the items were examined by six experts accompanied by an expert opinion inventory. A content validity study was conducted with data provided from opinions received from each expert through the expert opinion inventory, and interrater reliability was calculated. Accordingly, in the study, the compliance rates of 80 were sought and 25 items were found to remain on the draft scale. Thus, explanatory factor analysis was applied to the data obtained by applying the 25-item draft scale to 1010 participants.
Structure validity-explanatory factor analysis
To determine the factor structure of USDELID, explanatory factor analysis was first studied with the KMO coefficient and Bartlett Sphericity Analyses. Accordingly, the KMO coefficient value was found to be 984. As for that, the Bartlett Sphericity Test result was found significance (X2 = 30,826,009, standard deviation: 300, P = 0.000). The results showed the suitability of the data for factor analysis.[21] In this direction, the factor analysis was started with a 25-item nominated scale obtained after expert opinions. Since in factor building after factor analysis is made, eigenvalues for USDELID >1 are accepted, it is understood that it is a single factor structure in the first stage.[22],[23] Accordingly, item loads were found as 810 for 24 items and more, and the highest item load was 899. Item 23 was found to be 323, taking the lowest factor load as the only value. Moreover, the variance rate was found as 71,812, which was to be understood to be quite high.
Then, to obtain a factor-based structure, a pool of items was build up by the researcher, whereas four factors were manually tested to determine the suitability of the four dimensions foreseen. The eigenvalues and variance ratio of the factors in the four-factor structure is given in [Table 1].
As shown in [Table 1], the explanatory variance rate of a single factor with an equity value of 17,953 is 71.81% and is quite high. The variance rate explained by the second factor with an eigenvalue of 975 is 3.90, the variance rate of the third factor with an eigenvalue of 792 is 3.16, and the variance rate explained by the fourth factor with equity of 492 is 1.96. Moreover, the total explained variance rate increased to 80.85%.
Another method used to determine the factor structure, the scree pilot test is considered to determine the number of factors, where the slope starts to disappear according to the graph. Although the single-factor structure was initially revealed, the line chart that emerged according to the analyses tested according to four factors is included in [Figure 1].
After determining the number of factors, item factor loads were examined, the factor load value of each item was checked according to the subcutting point of 55, and so the factor structure was released. Thus, since item 23 was found to be in a stand-alone dimension, the 5-factor structure was also manually tested. Thus, item 23 scored 975 and generated a dimension alone, and it was thought that it could be positioned where desired on the scale. A four-dimensional (4D) scale structure was obtained from items other than item 23 as well. Accordingly, the item factor load values of the 4D structure are given in [Table 2]. | Table 2: Factor Load Values of Uskudar Democratic Leadership Scale items
Click here to view |
When the item factor load values were examined, the item load values of the four-factor structure of the scale received the appropriate values. The item factor load values were found to be highest as of 776, and lowest as of 551. In the next stage, the contents of the items are examined, and the factors are given names.
In naming dimensions, the order of items was taken into account, and the contents of items are distributed in dimensions were examined as meaning and appropriate nomenclature was made. Accordingly, items 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th constitute the first dimension and are called “Justice Oriented.”
6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th items constituted the second dimension, and when the contents were examined, it was seen that it was related to “Accountability.”
Articles 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th constitute the third dimension. When the contents of the articles are examined, it is understood that they are related to “Libertarianism/Pluralism.”
Items 21st, 22nd, 24th, and 25th constituted the fourth dimension. These items are evaluated in terms of content and the dimension is called “Participation.”
Twenty-third item alone has not been under other dimensions due to take the high load value. This item is not named and can be positioned anywhere on the scale to measure attention by writing the meaning in the sentence. This item is inverted and included in the scale total score when evaluating.
In the next stage, the relationship of dimensions with each other and USDELID is examined and given in [Table 3]. | Table 3: Uskudar Democratic Leadership Scale and its dimensions related to each other
Click here to view |
As [Table 3] was examined, it was found that the relationship levels were high compared to the Pearson correlation coefficients applied to the structure after factor analysis based on data obtained from 1010 participants and found in the correlation test to understand the interdimensional relationship and it is concluded that the scale consists of 25 items and four dimensions.
Discriminant validity
At this stage, item discriminant validity studies were carried out to determine whether the items on the scale measured the desired property. Data collected from 272 participants were sorted from large to small and difference tests were applied to data in the upper 27% and subgroups of 27%.
When [Table 4] is examined, the results were significant, it was concluded that USDELID is a scale that measures the desired properties. In this respect, the highest score from USDELID is 125, the lowest is 25. The average score obtained with 1010 participants was 100.31.
Convergent validity
At this stage, the relationship between the Uskudar Political Leadership Scale (USPLS) and USDELID, which is thought to be related to the validity of the criteria has been tested. As shown in [Table 5], a positively significant relationship was found.
Reliability studies
The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was calculated in the scope of USDELID's reliability studies and the Cronbach alpha coefficient of the 25 items, which constitute USDELID, was found to be 976. This resulting value revealed that the scale is highly reliable. Thus, a valid and reliable “USDELID” emerged. Internal consistency analysis of the USDELID based on dimensions and scale sum is given in [Table 6]. | Table 6: Uskudar Democratic Leadership Scale and the reliability of dimensions
Click here to view |
As it can be seen from [Table 6], the 976 Cronbach alpha value found in the sum of the Democratic Leadership Scale showed a high degree of reliability. When the scale subdivisions were examined, the Cronbach alpha value was found to be lowest as 942 and 972 as for the highest. Thus, the values received by the dimensions also revealed a high level of reliability.
| Conclusion | | |
USDELID is a measuring tool buildup with the validity and reliability of the “Test of Mightiness in Leadership and Dictatorship” in Tarhan's book (2017) “Mom, what is a 'Coup?' The Psychology of the Coup.” After all validity and reliability studies, it turned out to be a structure consisting of 25 items and four factors. USDELID is a five-type Likert scale rated in the range “I Disagree at All” and “I Fully Agree,” and the highest score from the entire scale is 125 and the lowest score is 25. Accordingly, the increase in the score from USDELID means an increase in the acceptance level of the Democratic Leadership [Annexure 1].
To interpret the scores to be taken from USDELID, the highest and lowest score range to be taken from the scale was determined and the range coefficients were calculated according to the Likert five-scale. The score is interpreted as “advanced autocrat and dictator personality” in the range of 25–40, “autocratic personality” in the range of 41–60 points, “risky group is diagnosed as autocrat at any time” in the range of 61–80, “highly democratic personality” in the range of 81–105, and “definitely democratic and fair personality” in the range of 106–125. USDELID is a scale of self-assessment and if it is evaluated with others in mind, it also gives the result of an estimated evaluation of that person, and if it is evaluated bilaterally, confirmation is ensured by perception control.
USDELID disclosure of 80.85% of the total variance is considered as very high in social sciences. Besides, the internal coefficient of consistency of the scale, Cronbach alpha, was found to be 97. Studies have shown that USDELID is a valid and reliable scale.
Patient informed consent
Informed consent was obtained.
Ethics committee approval
The ethics committee approval has been obtained from the Uskudar University Noninterventional Research Ethics Committee (61351342/April2021-27).
Financial support and sponsorship
No funding was received.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
Author contribution subject and rate
- Nevzat Tarhan (%50) contributed with scale items, theoretical background, and data collect
- Aylin Tutgun Unal (%50) designed the research, data analysis and wrote the whole manuscript.
| References | | |
| 1. | Tarhan N. Anne Darbe Ne Demek? Darbe Psikolojisi [Mom, what is a “Coup”? The Psychology of the Coup]. 1 st ed. Turkey, İstanbul: Timaş Publishing; 2017a.  |
| 2. | Turkish Language Association. The Meaning of the Word 'Dirayet'. Turkey: Turkish Language Association Dictionary, 2021. Access: https://www.tdk.gov.tr/. |
| 3. | Demirel S. Speech Report at the acceptance of the Young Democrats Association Board Members, 22th of June, 2001. |
| 4. | Arıkan S. Evaluation of Atatürk's leadership styles on the base of autocratic and democratic leadership behaviors. Hacettepe Univ J Econ Admin Sci, 2001;19:231-57. |
| 5. | Dessler G. Management. USA, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishing; 1998. |
| 6. | Certo CS. Modern Management. 7 th ed. USA, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishing; 1997. |
| 7. | Keçecioğlu T. Liderlik ve Liderler [Leadership and Leaders]. Turkey, İstanbul: KalDer Publishing; 1998. |
| 8. | Koçel T. İşletme Yöneticiliği [Business Management]. 6 th ed. Turkey, İstanbul: Beta Publishing; 1988. |
| 9. | Arıkan S. Kadın Yöneticilerin Liderlik Davranışları [The Leadership Styles of Women Manegers]. Ankara, Turkey: Doctoral Thesis, Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Science; 1997. |
| 10. | Ergeneli A. Lider Davranışı: Durumsal Değişkenlerin İş Yaşam Kalitesi İle İlişkilendirilmesi [Leader Behavior: Associating Situational Variables with the Quality of Work Life]. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi University, Institute of Social Science; 1992. |
| 11. | Wallace MJ, Andrew DS. Managing Behavior in Organizations. USA, Illinois: Pearson Scott Foresman and Company Publishing; 1982. |
| 12. | Katz D, Robert LK. Örgütlerin Toplumsal Psikolojisi [Social Psychology of Organizations]. Turkey, Ankara: TODAIE Publishing; 1977. |
| 13. | Taylor SE, Anne LP, David OS. Social Psychology. 9 th ed. USA, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishing; 1997. |
| 14. | Schermerhon JR, Hunt JG, Richard NO. Organizational Behavior. 7 th ed. USA, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Publisling; 2002. |
| 15. | Tarhan N. Psikolojik Savaş [Psychological War]. 22 th ed. Turkey, İstanbul: Timaş Publishing; 2017b. |
| 16. | Kalaycı Ş. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli Istatistik Teknikleri [SPSS Applied Multivariate Statistical Techniques]. Turkey, Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım; 2010. |
| 17. | Tavşancıl E. Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi [Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS]. Turkey, Ankara: Nobel Publishing; 2002. |
| 18. | Kansu AF. Politik Düşüncenin Ölçümlenmesi: Karar Verme Stilleri ve oy Verme Yaklaşımları Bağlamında Seçmen Davranişinin Değerlendirilmesi [Measuring Political Thought: Evaluating Voter Behavior in the Context of Decision-Making Styles and Voting Approaches]. İstanbul, Turkey: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis (Inprocess), Üsküdar University, Institute of Social Science; 2021. |
| 19. | Tavşancıl E, Aslan EA. Sözel, Yazılı ve Diğer Materyaller için Içerik Analizi ve Uygulama Örnekleri [Content Analysis and Application Examples for Verbal, Written and Other Materials]. Turkey, İstanbul: Epsilon Publishing; 2001. |
| 20. | Buyukozturk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı [Handbook of Data Analysis for Social Sciences]. Turkey, Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncıl; 2002. |
| 21. | Sharma, S. Applied Multivariate Techniques. USA, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Publisling; 1996. |
| 22. | Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 1987;34:414-24. |
| 23. | Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC. Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behav Genet 2002;32:153-61. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]
|
Search Pubmed for