Development of Accountability Behavior Scale for School Administrators: A Validity and Reliability Study
Author :
Abstract
Keywords
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable data collection tool in order to measure the accountability of school administrators. In data collection, Accountability Behavior Scale for School Administrators (ABSSA) was used. Exploratory sequential mixed method design was used in the development of ABSSA. In sample selection, maximum variation method was used in the qualitative stage and simple random sampling was used in the quantitative stage. The data were collected from three different teacher groups working in Erzurum, Turkey in the 2021-2022 academic year. 41 teachers participated in semi-structured interviews, 278 teachers in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and 223 teachers in Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Qualitative procedures were followed during the development of the item pool. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. The scale items were developed based on the themes and codes that emerged in the content analysis. The psychometric properties of the ABSSA were investigated using quantitative procedures. EFA revealed a structure consisting of 16 items and four factors, which explained 61.90% of the total variance. These factors were as follows: Accountability towards Students, Accountability towards Teachers, Accountability towards Parents, and Accountability towards Superiors. The structure revealed by EFA was confirmed using CFA. The fit indices of the obtained model were as follows: χ²/sd=1,98, CFI=0.98, NFI=0.96, GFI= 0.90, AGFI= 0.86, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.05. The structure of the scales was confirmed by CFA. The validity and reliability analysis of ABSSA showed that it was a valid and reliable measurement tool with four factors and 16 items.
Keywords
- X2 /sd 0 ≤ X2 /sd ≤ 2 2≤ X2 /sd ≤ 5 Meydan & Şeşen, 2011 1.98 Perfect Fit GFI .95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1.00 .90 ≤ GFI ≤ .95 Çokluk, Şekercioğlu &Büyüköztürk, 2010
- AGFI .90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 1.00 .85 ≤ AGFI ≤ .90 Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger &Müller, 2003
- CFI .97 ≤ CFI ≤ 1.00 .95 ≤ CFI ≤ .97 Çokluk vd., 2010 .98 Perfect Fit
- NFI .95 ≤ NFI ≤ 1.00 . 90 ≤ NFI ≤ .95 Çokluk vd., 2010 .96 Perfect Fit IFI . 95 ≤ IFI ≤ 1.00 . 90 ≤ IFI ≤ .95 Çokluk vd., 2010 .98 Perfect Fit
- RMSEA .00 ≤ RMSEA ≤ .05 .05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ .08 Tabachnick & Fidell,2007 .067 Acceptable Fit SRMR .00 ≤ SRMR ≤ .05 .05 ≤ SRMR ≤ .10 Tabachnick & Fidell,2007 .053 Acceptable Fit The model and numerical data of the First Level Confirmatory Factor Analysis of ABSSA are shown in
- increase in the score indicates that accountability level of school administrators increases. Accountability can be upward, downward, inward and outward. Vidovich and Slee (2000) defines these
- terms as follows (cited in Burke, 2005, p.3): (1) Upward accountability represents the traditional relationship
- they have to be accountable to their interlocutors. Kantos (2010) examined the views of administrators and
- and all their students (Kantos, 2013, p.107). In this sense, Argon (2015) found that the most frequently
- teachers and their own conscience, respectively. Çetin and Demirbilek (2018) found that the majority of school
- academic success and educational terms. Furthermore, Göksoy and Çakır (2021) found that school
- Celep and Öztürk (2009). This scale consists of three sub-dimensions (openness, responsibility,
- Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S. and Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?, CPRE Policy Briefs. Philaelphia: Unversity of Pennsylvania.
- Ackerman, J. M. (2005). Social accountability in the public sector: A conceptual discussion. Social Development Papers, Paper No. 82. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
- Argon, T. (2015). Teacher and administrator views on school principals' accountability. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 925-944.
- Aucoin, P. and Heintzman, R. (2000). The Dialectics of Accountability for Performance in Public Management Reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 45–55.
- Ayre, C. and Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86. doı: 10.1177/0748175613513808.
- Aziz, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri ve teknikleri (6. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
- Behn, R. D. (2003). Rethinking accountability in education: How should who hold whom accountable for what. International Public Management Journal, 6(1), 43-73.
- Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp. 1–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015) Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (Genişletilmiş 21. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (15. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Celep, C. ve Öztürk, N. (2009). Lider olarak okul müdürünün hesap verebilirliği (“cevap verebilirlik”, “açıklık” ve “sorumluluk” ölçeklerinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması). IV. Ulusal Eğitim Yönetimi Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı (ss. 376-384), Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
- Ciğerci, İ. (2007). Kamu mali yönetiminde hesap verme sorumluluğu ve iç denetim. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Afyonkarahisar.
- Creswell, J. W. and Plano-Clark, V. L. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmaları (Y. Dede ve S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
- Çetin, M. ve Demirbilek, M. (2018). Okul Müdürlerinin eşitlik ve hesapverebilirlik görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 1(2), 107-134. http://dx.doi.org/
- Çıtak, N. (2015). Hesap verebilirlik: Accountability-AA1000 güvence standartları serileri. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitabevi.
- Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamalı. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
- DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
- Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961-973.
- Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Edition). California: SAGE.
- Friedman, I. A. (2002). Burnout in school principals: Role related antecedents. Social Psychology of Education, 5(3), 229-251.
- Hermann, K. R. (2016). The Principal's role; distributed leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Old Dominion University, USA.
- Himmetoğlu, B., Ayduğ, D. ve Bayrak, C. (2017). Eğitim örgütlerinde hesap verebilirliğe ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri. Turkish Online Journal Of Qualitative İnquiry, 8(1), 39-68.
- Kalman, M. ve Gedikoğlu, T. (2014). Okul yöneticilerinin hesap verebilirliği ile örgütsel adalet arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(2), 115-128.
- Kantos, Z. E. (2010). İlköğretim okulu yönetici ve öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre kamu ve özel ilköğretim okulları için bir hesap verebilirlik modeli. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
- Kantos, Z. E. (2013). Eğitimde hesap verebilirlik. Ankara: Berikan Yayınevi.
- Kluvers, R. (2003). Accountability for performance in local government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 57-69.
- Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
- Meydan, C. H. ve Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
- Marks, H. M. and Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3–37.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1999). European principles for public administration, SIGMA PAPERS, No: 27. Erişim Tarihi: 21.11.2020, https://www.oecdilibrary.org/governance/european-principles-for-public-administration_5kml60zwdr7h-en
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Sigma external auditing & financial glassory. ErişimTarihi: 20.11.2020, http://www.sigma web.org/ publicationsdocuments/35079748.pdf
- Özen, Y. ve Gül, A. (2007). Sosyal ve eğitim bilimleri araştırmalarında evren-örneklem sorunu. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (15), 394-422.
- Pallant, J. (2006). SPSS kullanım kılavuzu (Çev. S. Balcı ve B. Ahi). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
- Ruffner, M. and Sevilla, J. (2004). Public sector modernisation: Modernising accountability and control, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 4(2), 123-141.
- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H. (2003). Evaluatingthe fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodnessof-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
- Shafritz, J. M., Russel, E.W. and Borick, C. P. (2017). Kamu yönetimini tanımak (N. Öztaş, Çeviri Editörü). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
- Tabachnick, B., G. and Fidell, L., S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). Pearson Education.
- Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
- Tutar, H. ve Altınöz, M. (2017). Hesap verebilirlik bağlamında iç denetim ve sorun alanları: Eleştirel bir analiz. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 225-248.
- World Bank (2004). State-society synergy for accountability: Lessons for the World Bank, World Bank Working Papers No: 30, Washington D.C. Erişim Tarihi: 28.05.2020, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/3913514687 6375 6949/ pdf/297010PAPER0State1society0synergy.pdf
- Yüksel, C. (2005). Devlette etikten etik devlete: Kamu yönetiminde etik (Kavramsal çerçeve ve uluslararası uygulamalar). TÜSİAD Devlette Etik Alt Yapı Dizisi 1. İstanbul: TÜSİAD Yayınları. Erişim Tarihi: 08.05.2020, https://tusiad.org/tr/ yayinlar/ raporlar/item/1922-devlette-etikten-etik-devlete--kamuyonetiminde-etik-kavramsal-cerceve-ve-uluslararasi-uygulamalar-cilt---1
