ej 847787

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

1/8

KARAHAN / Br letm ve atma zme Becer Etm Programnn nverste... 981

Te Valdty and Relablty of the

Mobbng Scale (MS)

Erkan YAMAN*

Abstract

Te am of ths research s to develop the Mobbing Scale and examine its validity andreliability. Te sample of the study consisted of 515 persons from Sakarya and Bursa. Inthis study, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and item analysisof the scale were examined. As a result of factor analysis for construct validity, four fac-tors have emerged which are named humiliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, andcommunication barriers. Tese subscales consist of 23 items and account for the 59.97%

of the total variance. Te internal consistency reliability coeffi cients were .91 for humili-ation, .77 for discrimination, .79 for sexual harassment, and .79 for communication bar-riers. Findings also demonstrated that item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .78.est-retest reliability coeffi cients were .78 and .91 for four subscales, respectively. Teitem-total correlations ranged from .54 to .78. According to these ndings the MobbingScale can be regarded as a valid and reliable instrument that could be used in the eld ofeducation and psychology.

Key Words

Mobbing, Validity, Reliability.

* Correspondence:Assist Prof. Erkan YAMAN, Faculty of Education, Department of urkish eaching,54300, Hendek , Sakarya/ urkey.E-mail: [email protected]

Kuram ve Uygulamada Eitim Bilimleri / Educational Sciences: Teory & Practice9 (2) Spring 2009 981-988

2009 Eitim Danmanl ve Aratrmalar letiim Hizmetleri ic. Ltd. ti.

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

2/8

982 EDUCAIONAL SCIENCES: HEORY & PRACICE

In recent years, especially in industrialized countries, mobbing, whichis spreading among workers because of increased competition in organ-izations, and aimed for putting the target person away from the workplace, is causing the work life to become unhealthy in psychologicaldimension (an, 2005). As a concept, mobbing is dened as emotionalassaults subjected to an employee working in an organization, and donefor different reasons, by the superior(s)/colleague(s) or subordinate(s).After all, in the studies of mobbing, it is seen that although the contentsare the same, different concepts are used interchangeably. For example,the terms bullying/victimization, emotional abuse, maltreatment/mis-treatment, harassment and abuse are some of the concepts often used todene mobbing (Yaman, 2007, 2009).

While Field (1996) deals with mobbing as constant and cruel attacks toa victims self-condence and self-esteem by a bully, Namie and Namie(2003) express that the concept of mobbing involves all kinds of nega-tive attitudes in the work place. Mobbing is also thought as offensive

behaviors that are not reected out like harassment (Fineman, Sims, &Gabriel, 2005). Studies based on the implementation show that victimscharacter and psychosocial factors are the two reasons of mobbing at

work (Einarsen, 1999). Poor working conditions can also be seen amongthe reasons of mobbing (Zapf, 1999). Te reections of the mobbing onemployees are seen as being excluded in the organization, harassment,sexual harassment, maltreatment, communicative obstacles, not assign-ing a task, giving task below/under the capacity, inhibiting legal rights,arrogance and degrading employees, misinforming, not transferring theknowledge, using the employee for self benets, humiliation, and bring-ing down.

Mobbing at work comes out in different ways. Downwards Mobbing iswhere employees are subjected to such treatment by their superiors inrank or position. Upwards Mobbing is opposite, meaning superiors are

subjected such treatment by employees. (this is very rare). HorizontalMobbing is present among the employees by the colleagues (Branch,Sheehan, Barker, & Ramsay, 2004). In addition, in research indicatestwo kinds of mobbing as individual and group mobbing (Yagil, 2004).

Leymann (1996), one of the foremost researchers of this eld, inves-tigated the people claimed as uneasy in an organization, and foundthat the claimed people werent in fact uneasy, and that their behaviors

werent caused by personality defect. Leymann, then, brought out that

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

3/8

YAMAN / Te Valdty and Relablty of the Mobbng Scale (MS) 983

the working conditions and culture of the organization created an at-mosphere that stamped those people as uneasy. While studying theseeffects in working places in Sweden, Leymann wrote that systematicallyhostile and unmoral communication subjected to one person by one ormore person(s) is dened as mobbing (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott,2003).

Since the day, the concept of mobbing has attracted great attentionin both theoretical and practical meaning, and has been the subject ofmany research studies. As well as general researches on mobbing at work

(e.g., Casimir, 2002; Lewis, & Orford, 2005; Mikkelsen, 2004; Yaman,2007, 2008; Zapf, & Einarsen, 2001), more specialized research havealso been intensied in some other elds like the psychological effectsof mobbing at work (DiMartino, 2003; Leymann, & Gustaffson, 1996;Lynch, & OMoore, 2004; Mikkelsen, & Einarsen, 2002), the causesof mobbing (Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994;Eriksen, & Einarsen, 2004; Hoel, 2004; Sheehan, Barker, & Rayner,

1999; Zapf, 1999) and relationship between mobbing and organiza-tional climate (Vartia, 1996; Vickers, 2006). Te ndings showed thatwomen academicians are more often exposed to mobbing (Bjrkqvist,sterman, & Hjelt-Bck, 1994) and that superiors put mobbing intopractice more than employees (Yaman, 2007). Te physical effects ofmobbing on victims disperse in wide fan such as: chronic insomnia,chronic tiredness syndrome, loosing/gaining too much weight, anorexia,neck/back ache, allergic reactions/irritation and rash, tachycardia, mouthdryness, dizziness, fear of losing consciousness, muscle tenseness/crampattacks, perspiratory/aura or cold wave, trembling/twitches, diffi culty inbreathing, headache/migraine, change in blood pressure, stomachache,diarrhea, alopecia/grey hair, chest ache, sickness/puking, intestines com-plaints, hearing loss, skin dryness, serious cuts and pitting/ deadness inhands and feet (Blase, & Blase, 2003; Bjrkqvist et al., 1994; Leymann,1996; Yaman, 2007).

Among the most important psychological effects of mobbing on vic-tims come stress, unhappiness, sadness, tension, feel of insecurity, de-motivation, unwilling to go to work, keeping the defense mechanismalways on, nervousness, excessive reaction or unresponsiveness, depres-sive mood, lack of self-condence, fear of losing job, thought of re-signing, crying/laughing attacks, worrying, paranoia, embarrassment,

aggressiveness, feel of squashed, panic attack and chimera (Bjrkqvist

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

4/8


et al., 1994; Blase, & Blase, 2003; Bren, & McNamara, 2004; Cusanck,2000; Davenport et al., 2003; Lewis, 2004; Leymann, 1996; Mikkelsen,& Einarsen, 2002; naz, 2006; Yaman, 2007; Zapf, 1999).

Te effects of mobbing are highly important on employees positive atti-tudes, satisfaction from their works and organizational trust and loyalty.For this reason, the development of a reliable and valid mobbing scale iscrucial. A review of the national literature shows that there is no meas-urement instrument to evaluate this construct. Terefore, the purposeof this study is to develop a measurement instrument that is capable of

evaluating mobbing reliably.When the research studies in urkey are investigated, it is clear thatmost descriptive research are conducted based on the Leymanns ty-pology (Bahe, 2007; Dilman, 2007; Ertrk, 2005; Gke, 2006; Kl,2006; Gcenmez, 2007; Gne, 2006; Ik, 2007; Yaman, 2007; Yavuz,2007), it is seen that.

Method

Sample

Te sample of the study consisted of 515 public employees who areemployed in different sectors in Sakarya and Bursa, urkey. Of the par-ticipants, 169 were females; 346 were males. Te mean age of the par-ticipants was 30 years.

Procedure

As a rst step of the procedure, relevant literature and studies of mob-bing were examined. Relevant literature has been reviewed in order toidentify the behaviors that can be listed under the banner of mobbing.Following the identication of mobbing behaviors, a pre-form was de-

veloped, consisting of 45 items. Te items of the pre-form were evalu-

ated in terms of content validity by academicians and measurementexperts. After the corrections and eliminations, 23 items were retainedfor the scale. In this study, exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses

were performed to examine the factor structure of the scale according tothe data obtained from the urkish participants. o understand whethera model is consistent with the data, the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)and the Comparative-Fit Index (CFI) should be above .90. In addition,

the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (RMSEA) should be. 05

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

5/8


or below to indicate a satisfactory t. In addition to these, whether ornot items have signicant factor loadings and regardless of factor cor-relations and item errors display signicant relationships have also beenexamined (Hu, & Bentler, 1999). est re-test and internal consistencyreliability analyses and item analysis of the inventory were examined.

Results

As a result of factor analysis for construct validity, four factors haveemerged which are named as humiliation, discrimination, sexual har-

assment, and communication barriers. Tese factors consist of 23 itemsand account for the 59.97 % of the total variance. Factor loadingsranged from .52 to .78 for humiliation, .54 to .76 for discrimination,.71 to .85 for sexual harassment, and .52 to .75 communication barriers.Similarly, the results of CFA indicated that the model was well t andChi-Square value (x2=914.29, N=515, sd=220, p=0.00) which was cal-culated for the adaptation of the model was found to be signicant. Te

goodness of t index values of the model were RMSEA=.078, NFI=.95,CFI=.96, IFI=.96, RFI=.94, and SRMR=.074. Te internal consistencyreliability coeffi cients were .91 for humiliation, .77 for discrimination,.79 for sexual harassment, and .79 for communication barriers. Findingsalso demonstrated that item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .78.

est-retest reliability coeffi cients were .78 and .91 for four subscales,respectively. Te item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .78.

Discussion

Te aim of this research was develop the MS and examine its psycho-metric properties. Overall, ndings demonstrated that this scale hadacceptable and high validity and reliability scores (Bykztrk, 2004;Bykztrk, Akgn, zkahveci & Demirel, 2004; abachnick, & Fi-dell, 1996; ezbaaran, 1996). Terefore, the scale is concluded to be a

valid and reliable instrument that can be used in the eld of education.However, because participants were public employees in the currentstudy, the examination of factor structure of the MS for other popula-tions should be studied in future.

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

6/8


References/Kaynaka

Bahe, . (2007).Mobbng oluumunda rgt kltrnn rol: Br rnek uygulama.Yaym-lanmam yksek lsans tez, Gaz nverstes, Sosyal Blmler Enstts, Ankara.

Bjrkqvst, K., sterman, K., & Hjelt-Bck, M. (1994). Agresson among unversty emp-loyees.Agressve Behavor,20, 173-184.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). Te phenomenology of prncpal mstreatment: eachersperspectves.Journal of Educatonal,41(4), 367-422.

Branch, S., Sheehan, M., Barker, M., & Ramsay, S. (2004, June). Perceptons of upwardsbullyng: An ntervew study. Te Fourth Internatonal Conference on Bullyng and Ha-rassment n the Workplace, UK: London.

Bren, A., & McNamara, P. M. (2004, June). An nvestgaton nto workplace bullyng andorgansatonal culture n healthcare wthn an Irsh hosptal settng.Te Fourth InternatonalConference on Bullyng and Harassment n the Workplace, UK: London.

Bykztrk, . (2004). Ver analz el ktab.Ankara: Pegem Yaynclk.

Bykztrk, ., Akgn, ., Kahvec, . ve Demrel, F. (2004). Gdlenme ve renmeStratejler lenn rke formunun geerlk ve gvenrlk almas. Kuram ve Uygu-lamada Etm Blmler,4(2), 207-239.

Casmr, M. M. (2002). Admnstratve mobbng at the unversty of toronto: Te tral,

degradaton and dsmssal of a professor durng the presdency of J. Robert. CanadanJournal of Educaton,27( 4), 521.

Cusanck, S. (2000). Workplace bullyng: Iceberg n sght, soundngs needed. Te Lancet,356, 2118.

Davenport, N., Schwartz, R. D. ve Ellott, G. P. (2003).yernde duygusal tacz(ev. O. C.nertoy). stanbul: Sstem Yaynlar.

Dlman, . (2007). zel hastanelerde alan hemrelern duygusal tacze maruz kalma du-rumlarnn belrlenmes.Yaymlanmam yksek lsans tez, Marmara nverstes, Salk

Blmler Enstts, stanbul.DMartno, V. (2003, October). Relatonshp between work stress and workplace volence nthe health sector. Symposum of Workplace Volence n the Health Sector, Geneva.

Enarsen, S. (1999). Te nature and causes of bullyng at work. Internatonal Journal ofManpower,20(1-2), 16-27.

Enarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthesen, S. M. (1994). Bullyng and harassment at workand ther realtonshp to work envronment qualty -an exploratory study. Europen Workand Organzatonal Psychologst,4, 381-401.

Erksen, W., & Enarsen, S. (2004). Gender mnorty as a rsk factor of exposure to bull-yng at work: Te case of male assstant nurses.Europen Journal of Work and OrganzatonalPsychology, 13(4), 473-492.

Ertrk, A. (2005). retmen ve okul ynetclernn okul ortamnda maruz kaldklar yldrmaeylemler.Yaymlanmam yksek lsans tez, Gaz nverstes, Sosyal Blmler Enstts,Ankara.

Feld, . (1996). Bullyng at work.Retrevet August 9, 2007, from www.bullyoffl ne.org/workbully/ndex.htm.

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

7/8


Fneman, S., Sms, D., & Gabrel, Y. (2005). Organzng and organzatons.London: SagePublcaton.

Gke, A. . (2006). yernde yldrma: zel ve resm lkretm okulu retmen ve yne-

tcler zernde yaplan br aratrma.Yaymlanmam doktora tez, Ankara nverstes,Sosyal Blmler Enstts, Ankara.

Gcenmez, S. (2007). Pskolojk ddet ve pskolojk ddetle mcadele arac olarak alanlkler ynetm. Yaymlanmam yksek lsans tez, Dokuz Eyll nverstes, SosyalBlmler Enstts, zmr.

Gne, N. (2006).Anadolu nverstes retm elemanlarnn duygusal tacze lkn grle-r ve deneymler.Yaymlanmam yksek lsans tez, Anadolu nverstes, Sosyal BlmlerEnstts, Eskehr.

Hoel, H. (2004, June). Volence and harassment n european workplaces: trends and poltcalresponses. Te Fourth Internatonal Conference on Bullyng and Harassment n the Work-place, UK: London.

Hu, L. ., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff crtera for ft ndexes n covarance structuralanalyss: Conventonal crtera versus new alternatves. Structural Equaton Modelng,6,1-55.

Ik, E. (2007).letmelerde mobbng uygulamalar le stres lksne ynelk br aratrma.Yaymlanmam yksek lsans tez, Yldz eknk nverstes, Sosyal Blmler Enstts,

stanbul.Kl, S.. (2006). Mobbng (yernde pskolojk ddet) sanay sektrnde yaanan mobbnguygulamalar, ksel etkler, rgtsel ve toplumsal malyetler.Yaymlanmam yksek lsanstez, Anadolu nverstes, Sosyal Blmler Enstts, Eskehr.

Lews, D. (2004). Bullyng at work: Te mpact of shame among unversty and collegelecturers.Brtsh Journal of Gudance & Counsellng,32(3), 281-299.

Lews, S. E. & Orford, J. (2005). Womens experences of workplace bullyng: changes nsocal relatonshp.Journal of Communty & Appled Socal Psychology, 15, 29-47.

Leymann, H. (1996). Te content and development of mobbng at work.European Journalof Work and Organzatonal Psychology, 5(2), 165-184.

Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbng at work and the development of post-traumatc stres dsorders. European Journal of Work and Organzatonal Psychology, 5(2),251-275.

Lynch, J., & OMoore, M. (2004, June). Workplace bullyng: Psychologcal effects, copng stra-teges and personalty constructs of recpents of bullyng behavours.Te Fourth InternatonalConference on Bullyng and Harassment n the Workplace,UK: London.

Mkkelsen, E. G. (2004, June). Copng wth exposure to bullyng at work - results from anntervew study.Te Fourth Internatonal Conference on Bullyng and Harassment n theWorkplace,UK: London.

Mkkelsen, E. G., & Enarsen S. (2002). Relatonshps between exposure to bullyng atwork and psychologcal and psychosomatc health complants: Te role of state negatveaffectvty and generalzed self-effcacy. Scandnavan Journal of Psychology, 43, 397-405.

Name, G., & Name, R. (2003). Te bully at work -what you can do to stop. USA: Source-

books nc. Retrevet December 23, 2006, from www.amazon.com.

8/9/2019 Ej 847787

8/8


Sheehan, M., Barker, M., & Rayner, C. (1999). Applyng strateges for dealng wth work-place bullyng.Internatonal Journal of Manpower,20(1-2), 50-56.

abachnck, B. G., & Fdell, L. S. (1996). Usng multvarate statstcs.New York, NY:

Harper Collns College Publshers.an, B. U. (2005).yernde rekabetn neden olduu pskolojk basklar.Yaymlanmam yk-sek lsans tez, Marmara nverstes, Sosyal Blmler Enstts, stanbul.

ezbaaran, A. (1996). Lkert tp lek geltrme klavuzu.Ankara: rk Pskologlar Der-ne Yaynlar.

naz, P. (2006).yernde pskolojk tacz.stanbul: Beta Basm Yaym Datm A. .

Varta, M. (1996). Te sources of bullyng -psychologcal work envronment and organ-

zatonal clmate.Europen Journal of Work and Organzatonal Psychology, 5(2), 203-214.Vckers, M. (2006). Wrtng what s relevant: Workplace ncvlty n publc admnstraton-awolf n sheeps clothng,Admnstratve Teory & Praxs,28(1), 69-88.

Yagl, D. (2004, June). Mobs and bulles: Collectve and ndvdual negatve nterperso-nal behavors. Te Fourth Internatonal Conference on Bullyng and Harassment n theWorkplace, UK: London.

Yaman, E. (2007). nverstelerde br etm ynetm sorunu olarak retm elemannn ma-ruz kald nformal cezalar: ntel br aratrma. Yaymlanmam doktora tez, Marmara

nverstes, Etm Blmler Enstts, stanbul.Yaman, E. (2008). nversteler ve etk: basklar ya da pskolojk ddet. Ahlk, 1, 81-97.

Yaman, E. (2009). Ynetm pskolojs asndan yernde pskoddet.Ankara: Nobel Ya-ynclk.

Yavuz, H. (2007). alanlarda mobbng (pskolojk ddet) algsn etkleyen faktrler: SDp Fakltes zerne br aratrma.Yaymlanmam yksek lsans tez, Sleyman Demrelnverstes, Sosyal Blmler Enstts, Isparta.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organsatonal, work group related and personel causes of mobbng/bullyng at work.Internatonal Journal of Manpower,20(1-2), 70-85.

Zapf, D., & Enarsen S. (2001). Bullyng n the workplace: Resent trends n research andpractce- an ntroducton. European Journal of Work and Organzatonal Psychology,10(4)369-373.

ej 847787

Documents