The Turkish adaptation of leisure facilitator scale: a validity and reliability study

Keywords: Leisure, facilitators, adaptation, university students

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study to test the reliability and validity of “Leisure Facilitator Scale” (LFS) for Turkish university students. Material: The sample included 111 female and 132 male, and totally 243 faculty of sport sciences’ students for this study. The LFS which was consists of 3 subscales and 27 items was used to collect data. Besides descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test the factor structure of LFS. Pearson’s product-moment coefficients were used to examine correlations between the factors. For determining the reliability of the scale Cronbach Alpha coefficient was calculated. Results: Analysis indicated that the Turkish version of the LFS constituted of 3 subscales and 16 items. Totally 11 items were excluded from the Turkish version because of lower factor loadings. Factor loading values of the items ranged between 0.49 and 0.76. Cronbach Alpha values were calculated as 0.79, 0.66, 0.78 and 0.86 for the subscales and total scale respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, results indicated that “Leisure Facilitator Scale” Turkish adapted form can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool to examine the factors that facilitate leisurely participation of students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

| Abstract views: 355 | PDF Downloads: 298 |

Author Biographies

B. Gürbüz, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Sports Management, Ankara University
bulentgurbuz@gmail.com; Ankara University Golbasi Campus, Ankara, Turkey
E. Öncü, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport Teaching, Trabzon University
ermanoncu@gmail.com; Trabzon University Sogutlu Mah. Akçaabat, Trabzon, Turkey
E. Emir, Yaşar Doğu Faculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport Teaching, Ondokuz Mayıs University
emiresraa@gmail.com; Ondokuz Mayıs University, Korfez Mah, Atakum, Samsun, Turkey

References

1. Gürbüz B, Henderson K. Leisure activity preferences and constraints to leisure: perspectives from turkey, World Leisure Journal, 2014, 56(4), 300- 316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2014.958195

2. Iso-Ahola SE. Toward a dialectical social psychology of leisure and recreation. 1980.

3. Kim J-H, Brown SL, Yang H. Types of leisure, leisure motivation, and well-being in university students. World Leisure Journal, 2019;61:43–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2018.1545691

4. Kraus RG. Leisure in a changing America: Multicultural perspectives. Macmillan College. Publishing Company; 1994.

5. Chick G, Hsu Y-C, Yeh C-K, Hsieh C-M. Leisure Constraints, Leisure Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction, and Self-Rated Health in Six Cities in Taiwan. Leisure Sciences, 2015;37:232–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2014.967897

6. Murphy H. Exploring leisure and psychological health and wellbeing: some problematic issues in the case of Northern Ireland. Leisure Studies, 2003; 22(1): 37-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360306570

7. Crawford DW, Godbey G. Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure sciences, 1987; 9(2): 119-127.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408709512151

8. Chick G, Dong E. Cultural constraints on leisure. In: E. L. Jackson (Editor), Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing; 2005. P. 169-183.

9. Jackson EL. Leisure constraints research: Overview of a developing theme in leisure studies. In E. L. Jackson (editor), Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing; 2005.

10. Mowen AJ, Payne LL, Scott D. Change and stability in park visitation constraints revisited. Leisure Sciences, 2005; 27: 191–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400590912088

11. Wood L, Danylchuk K. Constraints and negotiation processes in a women’s recreational sport group. Journal of Leisure Research, 2012; 44: 463–485.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2012.11950274

12. Evans K, Gagnon RJ. A structural model exploring gender differences in perceived constraints to competition climbing. Annals of Leisure Research, 2018:1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2018.1534598

13. Raymore L. Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure research, 2002; 34(1): 37-51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2002.11949959

14. Kim B, Heo J, Chun S, Lee Y. Construction and initial validation of the leisure facilitator scale. Leisure/Loisir, 2011; 35(4): 391-405.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2011.648402

15. Hubbard J, Mannell RC. Testing competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure sciences, 2001;23(3): 145-163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/014904001316896846

16. Kennelly M, Moyle B, Lamont M. Constraint negotiation in serious leisure: A study of amateur triathletes. Journal of Leisure Research, 2013; 45: 466–484.
https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2013-v45-i4-3895

17. MacCosham B. Negotiating leisure constraints: the case of an amateur musician with epilepsy, Leisure Studies, 2017; 36(6): 825-837.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2017.1285955

18. Alvarado M, Murphy MM, Guell C. Barriers and facilitators to physical activity amongst overweight and obese women in an Afro-Caribbean population: A qualitative study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2015;12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0258-5.

19. Kang HY, Kim HH, Choi HW, Lee WI, Lee CW. Relationship between Leisure Facilitators and Serious Leisure among Female Korean College Soccer Participants. Asian Social Science, 2017, 13(4), 117-124.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n4p117

20. Emir E, Küçük Kılıç S, Gürbüz B, Öncü E. Leisurely participation of Turkish women’s: Constraints and facilitators. 14th International Sport Sciences Congress 01st-04th November, Antalya: Turkey; 2016.
21. Koçak F. Leisure Constraints And Facilitators: Perspectives From Turkey. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 2017; 3 (10): 32-46.

22. Sarol H. Examination of the constraints and facilitators to physical activity participation of individuals. Journal of Human Sciences, 2017; 14(4): 4354-4364.
https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5121

23. Crawford DW, Jackson EL, Godbey G. A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure sciences, 1991; 13(4): 309-320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513147

24. Korotkov D, McLean H, Hamilton L. Predicting leisure satisfaction: A comparative analysis of the agency and communion model with the five-factor model of personality. The American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 2011;15: 1-20.

25. Stensland S, Aas Q, Mehmetoğlu M. Understanding Constraints and Facilitators to Salmon Angling Participation: Insights from Structural Equation Modeling, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2017; 22(1): 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1199073

26. Allen LR. Benefits of leisure attributes to community satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 1990; 22(2): 183-196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1990.11969824

27. Henderson KA, Estes CA. New terms, broader approaches: Recreation and social ecology of physical activity. Parks and Recreation, 2002; 35: 28–34.

28. Bertrais S, Preziosi P, Mennen L, Galan P, Hercberg S, Oppert JM. Sociodemographic and geographic correlates of meeting current recommendations for physical activity in middle-aged French adults: the Supplementation en Vitamines et Mineraux Antioxydants (SUVIMAX) Study. American Journal of Public Health, 2004; 94(9): 1560-1566.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.9.1560

29. Jones I, Gratton C. Research methods for sports studies. London: Routledge; 2004.

30. Thomas JR, Nelson JK. Research methods in physical activity (3rd ed.). Champaing, IL: Human Kinetics; 1996.

31. Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Index construction and scaling methods. Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences, London: St Martin’s Press; 1996.

32. Hambleton RK, Patsula L. Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1999; 1(1): 1-30.

33. McIntire SA, Miller LA. Foundations of psychological testing. Fairfield, PA: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2000.
34. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.

35. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge; 2010.

36. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999; 6: 1-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

37. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (9.Basım) [Data analysis handbook for social sciences (9th ed.)]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2008. (in Turkish)

38. Koçak F, Gürbüz B, Doğaner S, Özbek, O. Relationship Among Leisure Facilitators, Leisure Constraints, and Leisure Involvement: Structural Equation Modelling Study. 16th International Sports Sciences Congress, 2018, 31 October- 03 November. Antalya: Turkey; 2018. P. 64-65.
Published
2019-04-20
How to Cite
1.
Gürbüz B, Öncü E, Emir E. The Turkish adaptation of leisure facilitator scale: a validity and reliability study. Physical education of students. 2019;23(2):64-9. https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2019.0202
Section
Articles