Müge ÇELİK ÖRÜCÜ
Dr. TED University, Faculty of Education, Turkey.

Problem Statement: Much theoretical interest and attention has been given to the cognitive strategies that individuals use in achievement related domains. Defensive-pessimism is a functional strategy in a demanding academic setting for those who easily become anxious. However, this is a new concept for Turkish researchers and there is currently no instrument for defensive pessimism. Therefore, an instrument is needed to measure defensive pessimism.

Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study was to provide construct validation and normative data for the Turkish adaptation of Defensive- Pessimism Scale (DPS) in a sample of Turkish university students. In the educational settings, many teachers are not aware of defensive pessimism as a cognitive strategy because it is not included in their education. The use of this scale may have many implications in the educational setting.

Method: First, translation and back translation of the questionnaire were carried out. Thereafter, LISREL 8.30 was used to perform a confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was used as this is a theorydriven method for assessing the fit of a-priori-specified model. SPSS 17.0 was also used for descriptive statistics.

Findings and Results: Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for both single and two-factor models of the Turkish version of the DPS. For the single model, after a slight modification, the following indices were obtained: χ² (51) = 121.04, p <.01; χ²/df = 2.37; GFI =.93; AGFI =.89; RMSEA =.07; and CFI =.95. For the two factor model, χ² (51) = 138.39, p <.01; χ²/df = 2.71; GFI =.91; AGFI =.87; RMSEA =.08; and CFI =.94 were found. The internal consistency of the DPS was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, which was.81 for the total; .78 for the negative expectation; and .64 for reflectivity. McDonald’s Omega was also computed for the single factor as .77 and the two factor model for the negative expectation factor .81 and.73 for reflectivity. In order to test for gender differences, a independent samples t-test was used and no significant difference was found for the total scale and subscales t (254.64) =.103, p >.05. The correlation between the Perceived Stress Scale and DPS was found to be – , 29 (p < .01), with the correlation being .15 (p < .05) for the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale.

Conclusions and Recommendations: The results of this study showed that the Turkish version of the DPS provides a reliable and valid measure for Turkish university students and can be used in related research.

Keywords: Defensive Pessimism Scale, reliability, and validity.