EğitimveBilim2010,Cilt35,Sayı158

EducationandScience2010,Vol.35,No158

AdaptationoftheLeadershipPracticesInventory(LPI)toTurkish

LiderlikUygulamalarıÖlçeği’ninTürkçe’yeUyarlamaÇalışması

MustafaYAVUZ*

SelçukÜniversitesi

AbstractAim of this research is determined as adapting the Leadership Practice Inventory

developedbyKouzes&Posner(2003)toTurkish.Workinggroupoftheresearchconsistof436teacherschosenbyusingtherandomsamplingmethodamongtheteachersworkingin2009-2010educationalyears inKonya/Turkey. 194of the teachers constituting theworkinggrouparefemaleand242ofthemaremale.Averageworkingyearofthemare15years.Duringtheadaptation of the scale, itwasfirst translated intoTurkishbyEnglish teaching experts; thentheTurkishtextwasretranslatedintoEnglish,comparedwiththeoriginaltextandfoundtobeidenticalwithit.ExploratoryFactorAnalysis(EFA)andConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis(CFA)wasconducted.ReliabilityofthescalewastestedbyusingCronbachα,SpearmanBrown,GutmannSplit-Halftechniquesandcorrecteditem-totalcorrelations,thevaluesrelatedtodifferencesof27percentage lower-highergroups.Asa resultof thevalidity and reliability analysis, itwasthoughtthatTurkishadaptationprocessofthescalewascompleted.

Keywords:LeadershipPracticesInventory,Validity,Reliability,SchoolPrincipal,Teacher

ÖzBuaraştırmanınamacı,Kouzes&Posner(2003)tarafındangeliştirilenLeadershipPractices

Inventory’ninTürkçeyeuyarlanmasıolarakbelirlenmiştir.Araştırmanınçalışmagrubunu,2009-2010 eğitim-öğretim yılında Konya/Türkiye’de görev yapan öğretmenler arasından tesadüfiörnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 436 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma grubunda yer alanöğretmenlerin194’ükadınve242’sierkektir.Öğretmenlerinmeslekikıdemiortalaması15yıldır.ÖlçeğinuyarlamasürecindeöncelikleTürkçeyeçevirisiyapılmıştır.Ardındanölçeğingeçerliğinisağlamak amacıyla, dilsel eşdeğerliği test edilmiş, açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerigerçekleştirilmiştir.Ölçeğingüvenirliğiise,Cronbachα,SpearmanBrown,GutmannSplit-Halfteknikleri,DüzeltilmişMadde-ToplamKorelasyonları ve%27’lik alt-üst grup farkına ilişkin tdeğerlerihesaplanaraksağlanmıştır.BuişlemlerdensonraölçeğinTürkçeformunungeçerlivegüvenilirolduğusonucunavarılmıştır.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Liderlik uygulamaları ölçeği, geçerlik, güvenirlik, okul müdürü,öğretmen.

Introduction

Because of the rapid changes in all fields, it is getting harder to predict the future. Inorganizations,theserapidchangesareinneedoftheleaderslikecaptainswhohavetheabilityandspecialtyofrescuingtheirshipsfromastormwithhugewaves.Inrecentyears,researcherswhoareawareofthisfacthavegivenaspecialimportancetotheleadershipresearchesandhavelotsofresearchesonthissubject.

* Yrd.Doç.Dr.MustafaYAVUZ,SelçukÜniversitesi,AhmetKeleşoğluEğitimFakültesi,EğitimBilimleriBölümü,mustafayavuz@selcuk.edu.tr

144 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

Schools have forever been vessels for their constituents’ dreams. Parents, students,taxpayers, educational reformers, and politicians want their schools to be better, different.Schools are populatedwith caring, committed educators, peoplewho inmost instances holddearlytheirobligationtorespondtothedreamsandconcernsofcommunitymembers.Indeed,asvehiclesforenlightenmentandsocialandeconomicmobility,schoolswereinventedtocarrydreamsforfamilies,individuals,andsociety(Donaldson,2006,p.13).Inrespecttotheperceivedleadershipapproach,surveyresultsindicatedthatthemajorityoflowachievementschools,atleast,werefunctioningastraditionalhierarchicalorganizations.Fewerthan70%ofteachersinthe lowachievementschoolsperceived theprincipalasdemocratic,participatory,or inclusiveIncontrast,inapreviousstudyofinhighachievementschoolsinanotherdistrictthathadbeenrecognizedasaninnovativeschool(Sheppard&Brown,2000),100%ofthestaffsawtheprincipalasakeysourceofleadership,andover90%sawher/himasdemocratic,participatory,orinclusive(Shepperd,Brown&Dibbon,2009).

Theschoolswhichareexecutingsomanyimportantfunctionsinsocietyneedeffectiveleaders. School leadersaresurroundedbymessagesabout theneedsof theirschool.Not infrequently,theneedsofstudentsandstaffareeclipsedbythemorepublicissuesofsafety,accountability,andfunding;bydemandsfromthedistrict;orevenbyabalkyphysicalplant(McKeever,2003).AccordingtoDonaldson(2006)schoolleadership;mobilizespeopletoadapttheirpracticesandbeliefssothateverychild’slearningandgrowthsareoptimized.Furthermore,numerousscaleshavedevelopedtomeasurethebehaviorsoftheleadersfromvariousorganizationtypes.SomeofthemaregiveninTable1.

Table1.Someofthedevelopedscalesformeasuringthebehaviorsofleaders

Nameofthescale Sub-dimensions Developersofthescale Year

EmpoweringLeadershipQuestionnaire(ELQ)

Coaching,Informing,LeadingByExample,ShowingConcern/InteractingwiththeTeam,andParticipativeDecision-Making

JoshA.Arnold,Sharon,Arad,JonathanA.Rhoades&FritzDrasgow

2000

MultifactorLeadershipQuestionnaire(MLQ)

IdealizedInfluence(attributed),IdealizedInfluence(behavior),InspirationalMotivation,IntellectualStimulation,IndividualizedConsideration,ContingentReward,ManagementbyException(active),ManagementbyException(passive),Laissez-faire,ExtraEffort,Effectiveness,Satisfaction

Bass,B.M.&Avolio,B.J. 1995

charisma,intellectualstimulation,individualizedconsideration,contingentreward,management-by-exception

Bycio,P.,Hackett,R.D.,&Allen,J.S. 1995

CharismaticLeadershipScale(C-K)

Visionformulation,visionformulation,environmentalsensitivity,uncenventionalbehaviors,personelrisk,sensitivitytomemberneeds,doesnotmaintainstatusque

Conger,J.A.andKanungo,R.N. 1994

Transformationalleadership

Vision,staffdevelopment,supportiveleadership,empowerment,innovativethinking,leadbyexample,charisma

Carless,S.,WearingA.&MannL. 2000

Vision,Intellectualstimulation,Inspirationalcommunication,Supportiveleadership,Personalrecognition

Rafferty,A.E.&Griffin,M.A. 2004

Servantleadership

Conceptualskills,Empowering,Helpingsubordinatesgrowandsucceed,Puttingsubordinatesfirst,Behavingethically,Emotionalhealing,Creatingvalueforthecommunity

Liden,R.C.,SandyJ.Wayne,S..J.,Zhao,H.,Henderson,D

2008

InstructionalLeadershipSurvey InstructionalImprovement,CurriculumImprovement Valentine&Bowman, 1988

145ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

RequiredtobeadaptedtoTurkishLPI,providesyouwithinformationaboutyourleadershipbehavior.ItdoesnotmeasureIQ,personality,style,orgeneralmanagementskills.Kouzes&Posner(2003)designedtheLPItobeusedbymultipleraters.BycompletingtheLPI,severalobserverscangivefeedbackonyouruseofthefiveleadershippractices(ChallengingtheProcess,InspiringaSharedVision,EnablingOtherstoAct,ModelingtheWay,andEncouragingtheHeart)

Challengingtheprocess(CP)Leaderssearchforopportunities tochangethestatusquo.Theylookforinnovativeways

toimprovetheorganization.Indoingso,theyexperimentandtakerisks.Andbecauseleadersknowthatrisktakinginvolvesmistakesandfailures,theyaccepttheinevitabledisappointmentsaslearningopportunities(Kouzes&Posner2001).Organizations,likeindividuals,haveidentities.Aswith personal identities, organizational identities are built upon experiences, beliefs, andvalues. In a school organization, identity is theproduct of the shared experiences, traditions,beliefs,andvaluesof itsstaff,students,andcommunity (McKeever,2003;Seifert&Vornberg,2002).AccordingtotheresearchofJohnson&Asera(1999);principalsofthehighachievementschoolsaresureofthemselves,cancopewiththeproblems,difficultiesandtheeventoffailure.Theydon’tgiveuptryingtodeveloptheirschoolsinspiteofthedisappointmentsanddifficulties.Moreover,effectiveschoolprincipalsareopentodynamicchangesand labor todevelop theirschoolconstantly(Bartell,1990).

A schoolwith a history of successful studentsmight have an organizational identity ofitselfasefficacious;itmighthavebeliefsandvaluesthat,asaschool,itcanandshouldmeettheneedsofjustaboutanystudent.Alesssuccessfulschoolmightquestionitsownabilitytoteachsuccessfullyandmightbepronetomakeexcusesforthelackofsuccess(McKeever,2003).

HighConceptschoolleadersareconstantlyfeedingtheirmindswithnewideas.Theyspendtime thinking about newways of doing things and different possibilities. They like to buildlinkagesandconnectionsbetweenevents, ideasandopportunities.At the same time theyarelikelytostimulateotherstothink(Tomlinson,2004).

One of the specialties of the effective school principals is being ready to take risks andseeingthemistakesasachancetolearn.Researchesshowthatlowachievementschoolsaremorenormativethanhighachievementschools,successfulschoolprincipalsarewillingto takeriskandtalentedtoassesstherisks(Sizemore,1985;Wendel,Hoke&Joekel,1996).

Inspiringasharedvision(IS)Leaders passionately believe that they canmake a difference. They envision the future,

creatinganidealanduniqueimageofwhattheorganizationcanbecome.Throughtheirmagnetismandquietpersuasion,leadersenlistothers intheirdreams.Theybreathelifeintotheirvisionsandgetpeopletoseeexcitingpossibilitiesforthefuture(Kouzes&Posner2001).

Themostoftenwrittenandspokenoffunctionofleadershipis“vision”.Visioninginschoolsbyleadermaybeginwiththeprincipalasaformalleader,butvisioningmustbeencouragedasataskforallparticipantstobeinvolved.Theprincipalisamajorplayerinaleadingtheprocessofcreatingavision(Seifert&Vornberg,2002).Principalhastheauthoritytoleadthedevelopmentofapowerfulvisionforaschoolornot.Theprincipal’sfirstresponsibility in thisregard is todefineapersonallyheldvisionfortheschoolandrefertoanumberofdatasourcestodevelopaclearpictureofcurrentreality.Theprincipalthensharesthisvisionandinformationwithothers,givingcolleaguesanopportunitytofeelthepotentialforimprovement(McKeever,2003).

Visionisdreamingthethingsfromtodaywhichwewanttohappeninthefuture.Long-termthinkingandkeepingupwiththesocialchangesunderliethevision.Oneotherexplanationofthevisionishavingarealisticdreamoftheaimswantedtobereached(Özdemir,2000).AccordingtoShepperd,Brown&Dibbon(2009),%81oftheteachersthinksthatdevelopingavisionforschoolisimportant.Researchesshowthatsuccessfulschoolprincipalshaveapowerfulvisionandshare

146 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

theirvisionwithparents,studentsandotherpartnersoftheschool(Scheurich1998&Mendez-Morse,1991).Butaccordingtotheteachersworkinginlowachievementschools,althoughtheythinkthatdevelopingaschoolvisionisimportant,only%36ofthemdenotesthattheysufficientlyconductcreatingtheschoolvision(Shepperd,Brown&Dibbon,2009).

Enablingotherstoact(EO)Leadersfostercollaboration andbuildspiritedteams.Theyactivelyinvolveothers.Leaders

understandthatmutualrespect iswhatsustainsextraordinaryefforts; theystrive tocreateanatmosphereoftrustandhumandignity.Theystrengthenothers,makingeachpersonfeelcapableandpowerful(Kouzes&Posner2001).Successfulschoolsemergefromthedirectionofprincipalswho see the school organization fromaholisticpoint of view. Seeing thebigpicture iswhatprincipalsdwhentheyunderstandandareabletocommunicateandshapethevalues,beliefs,andattitudesoffacultyandstudents(Seifert&Vornberg,2002,p.90).AccordingtoBilgen(1990),oneoftheeffectiveitemsincreatingtheschoolclimateisschoolmanagement.Effectiveschoolprincipalscreateaschoolclimateseeingthestudentachievementastheprimaryaim.Alltheireffort is toreachtheaimedsuccess(Barth,1990;Deal&Peterson,1999;Steller,1998).Besides,effective schoolprincipalsprovideadministrative support to the teachers’beingable to focusonthedeterminedaims.Accordingtoresearch“TurkishEducationSystemandEffectiveSchoolFigures”donebyBakay&Kalem(2009),itisdeterminedbyschoolprincipalsandteachersthatthemostimportantfigureoftheschooleffectivenessistheclimate.Furthermore,accordingtoanother finding obtained from the research, teachers and principals accept the participativedecisionprocessasoneof theeffective schoolfigures.ResearchdonebyBlasé&Blasé (1994)indicates that successful schoolprincipalsarealsosuccessful inparticipativedecisionmakingandentitlingthepersonnel.

Modelingtheway(MW)Leaders establish principles concerning the way people (constituents, colleagues, and

customersalike)shouldbetreatedandthewaygoalsshouldbepursued.Theycreatestandardsofexcellenceandthensetanexample forotherstofollow.Becausetheprospectofcomplexchangecanoverwhelmpeopleandstifleaction,theysetinterimgoalssothatpeoplecanachieve smallwins astheyworktowardlargerobjectives.Theyunravelbureaucracywhenitimpedesaction;theyputupsignpostswhenpeopleareunsureofwheretogoorhowtogetthere;andtheycreateopportunitiesfor victory (Kouzes&Posner 2001).Although it is often easy to fall into the trapofprovidingsolutions,directingresponses,andservingasanswermen,leadersoperatemoreasconsultantstoothers(Donaldson,2006,p.161).Fartoomuchofthetimeprincipalsseemtorevertto“daasIsay”insteadof“doasIdo”.TheyprovidelipserviceforideasbutneverfollowupwithactionPrincipalsmustestablishaprocesstoevaluateschooldeficiencies.Theymustprovideleadershipforteachers,parents,andallstakeholdersinthedevelopmentofanimprovementplanintheirdailyactivities,leadersaremagnetsforproblems,issues,andnewideasbecausetheyofferotherswaystoworkonthoseproblems.Principalcannotbetheleaderoftheprocessandatthesametimeisaparticipant;itjustdoesn’tallowafreeflowofideas(Seifert&Vornberg,2002).

Itisn’tsatisfactorythattoday’sschoolprincipalsareinthepositionofonlygivingdirectionandinstruction.Itisnecessarythatprincipalsshouldbeabletocreateamodelforallpartnersoftheirschools.Becausepeoplearemoredisposedtofollowthestepsoftheleadersratherthanfollowingtheirinstructions.

Encouragingtheheart(EH)Accomplishing extraordinary things in organizations is hard work. To keep hope and

determinationalive,leadersrecognizecontributions thatindividualsmake.Ineverywinningteam,themembersneedtoshareintherewardsoftheirefforts,soleaderscelebrateaccomplishments. Theymakepeoplefeellikeheroes(Kouzes&Posner2001).Effectiveleadersorchestrateratherthandictateimprovement(Harris&Lambert,2003).Goodleadersmotivateusandchallengeus

147ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

andremainoptimisticeveninthefaceofadversity.Theyexistatalllevelsinanyorganizationandmostimportantly,theygeneratedevelopment,changeandimprovement(Harris&Lambert,2003).Schoolsprincipalsare leadersof theschools. Principalsareexpectedtocarrythetorchfor whole-school concerns—establishing a vision, assuring smoothmanagement, making theschoolresponsivetoschoolboardorstaterequirements,orevenfoistingchangeonunwillingstaffandstudents(Donaldson,2006,p.94).Principalsaretoencourageandempoweralloftheparticipantstoanalyzetheirsituationsandimprovetheiractionstomeetgoalsthatareestablishedbystakeholdersasagroup(Seifert&Vornberg,2002).

Relatedtoschoolleadershiphasalargenumberofresearchesintheliterature.But,muchoftheresearchisoverlytheoreticalofferingthoseinschoolsacomplexandratherinaccessiblepictureofeffectiveschoolleadershipinaction.Itisdifficulttoseehow‘transformational’,‘moral’,‘learning-centred’,‘instructional’and‘pedagogical’leadershiprelateanditisevenmoredifficulttoseehowthoseinschoolstranslatethisamalgamoftheoryintoanypracticalguidance(Harris&Lambert,2003).Duetothe“leadershippracticesinventory”directlymeasuretheleadershippracticesofschoolprincipals.That’swhyaimoftheresearch,leadershippracticesinventoryistobeadaptedintotheTurkish.

Method

WorkingGroupWorkinggroupoftheresearchconsistof436teacherschosenbyusingtherandomsampling

methodamongtheteachersworkingin2009-2010educationalyearsinKonya/Turkey.194oftheteachersconstitutingtheworkinggrouparefemaleand242ofthemaremale.Averageworkingyearofthemare15years.

LeadershipPracticesInventoryTheLPIconsistedof30questionsansweredonatenpointscale.TheLPIcontainedquestions

pertainingtofivesub-dimensionsofleadershiptitledastheFivePracticesofExemplaryLeadersbyKouzes&Posner (2003).Thefivesub-dimensionsareas follows:Model theWay, InspireaSharedVision,ChallengetheProcess,EnableOtherstoAct,andEncouragingtheHeart.ModelingtheWayisbestdescribedasleadingbyexample.Inventorytakenfromhighervaluerepresentsmorefrequentuseofaleadershipbehavior.TenpointofInventory:(1)Almostneverdowhatisdescribed in thestatement; (2)Rarely; (3)Seldom; (4)Once inawhile: (5)Occasionally; (6)Sometimes;(7)FairlyOften;(8)Usually;(9)VeryFrequently;and,(10)Almostalwaysdowhatisdescribedinthestatement.PermissiontousethissurveywasobtainedinwritingfromDebbieNotkin, contractsmanagerofWiley InterScience. The scale isdesignedfivepointsduring toTurkishadaptationprocess,becausethescaleisconsideredtobemoreclearlyunderstood.

Findings

FindingsrelatedtoExploratoryFactorAnalysis(EFA)ofLeadershipPracticesScaleValidityoftheinventoryConstruction validity of the scale was tested by EFA, first -order Confirmatory Factor

Analysis(CFA)andsecond-orderCFA.ThelingualequivalenceandEFAresultsofthescaleDuringtheadaptationofthescale,itwasfirsttranslatedintoTurkishbyEnglishteaching

experts; then the Turkish textwas retranslated into English, comparedwith the original textandfoundtobeidenticalwithit.ThenTurkishandEnglishformsofthescalewereappliedto25EnglishLanguageTeachers. According toÖzgüven (1994), the time interval between two

148 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

testsshouldbe2-4weeks.AfterTheTurkishandEnglishformsofthescaleareapplied,Pearsoncorrelationcoefficientswereexamined in termsofbotheach itemsandsub-dimensionsof thescale.CorrelationcoefficientbetweentheTurkishandEnglishformsofthescalewascalculatedastotally.91.Amongthesub-dimensions,theleastcorrelationcoefficientwascalculatedas.72forthesub-dimension“modeltheway”.Correlationcoefficientswerecalculatedforthesub-dimensionsofthescaleasrespectively.92for“inspireasharedvision”,.86for“challengetheprocess”.85for“encouragingtheheart”and.84for“enableotherstoact”.CorrelationbetweeneachitempointsofthescaleiscalculatedasM1=.75,M2=.78,M3=.82,M4=.80,M5=.81,M5=.92,M6=.76,M8=.81,M9=.78,M10=.82,M11=.78,M12=.84,M13=.81,M14=.82,M15=.93,M16=.86,M17=.78,M18=.82,M19=.84,M20=.86,M21=.85,M22=.93,M23=.91,M24=.98,M25=.82,M26=.91,M27=.86,M28=.80,M29=.84,M30=.92.

SubsequenttopermissionobtainmentfromtheMinistryofNationalEducational,thescalewasadministeredbytheresearcherto436peopleconsistingofprimaryandsecondaryschoolteachersand theobtaineddatawereanalyzedbyusingSPSS16.0.During theanalysis,whenKaiser-Meyer-Olkintestwasfoundtobe.82andBartlett’stestwassignificant(X2=9.470,P=0,00),EFAwasconducted.EFAaimstoreachafewmeaningfulstructureswhichtogetherexplainofthesevariablesfromgreatnumberofvariables.Thebasiccriterioninevaluationoffactoranalysisresultsisfactorloadingwhichcanbeinterpretedasthecorrelationbetweenvariablesandfactors.Forfactorloadtobehighisanindicationthatvariablescanbesubsumedunderthehighfactorsin question (Büyüköztürk, 2004). If orthogonally exists between the factors of scale, varimaxrotationtechniqueisused.Ontheotherhand,ifthereisaconstantrelationalsequence,obliquerotationtechniqueisgenerallyused(Tabachnick&Fidell,1996).Inthisresearch,varimaxrotationtechniquewasusedastherelationallevelbetweenfactorsofscaleisunder.32.TheresultofEFAofthescalewascalculatedandtheresultsaregiveninTable2.

Table2.TheResultofEFA

Item no Component1 2 3 4 5

M1 ,271 ,289 ,250 ,275 ,691M2 ,326 ,320 ,329 ,228 ,446M3 ,325 ,322 ,302 ,315 ,471M4 ,693 ,329 ,231 ,210 ,321M5 ,669 ,348 ,166 ,283 ,257M6 ,602 ,316 ,330 ,340 ,150M7 ,577 ,224 ,512 ,219 ,260M8 ,576 ,179 ,402 ,353 ,290M9 ,554 ,239 ,367 ,297 ,440M10 ,549 ,375 ,433 ,212 ,217M11 ,534 ,386 ,270 ,164 ,303M12 ,498 ,324 ,340 ,282 ,256M13 ,171 ,719 ,285 ,240 ,242M14 ,277 ,623 ,194 ,066 ,439M15 ,344 ,593 ,180 ,273 ,289M16 ,425 ,580 ,358 ,191 ,122M17 ,396 ,569 ,307 ,218 ,054M18 ,181 ,404 ,717 ,278 ,164M19 ,444 ,251 ,670 ,056 ,239M20 ,472 ,176 ,603 ,351 ,224M21 ,217 ,370 ,553 ,367 ,299M22 ,377 ,351 ,548 ,252 ,136M23 ,182 ,189 ,521 ,346 ,382M24 ,370 ,333 ,500 ,360 ,099M25 ,191 ,107 ,156 ,807 ,249M26 ,388 ,267 ,297 ,534 ,192M27 ,378 ,315 ,367 ,524 ,174M28 ,388 ,397 ,207 ,514 -,029M29 ,222 ,365 ,369 ,510 ,177M30 ,369 ,358 ,270 ,491 ,160

149ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

AsaresultoftheEFA,itwasobservedthatsomeofthescaleitemswereindifferentsub-dimensionsunlikelytheoriginalscale.Forexample,whiletheitems16,21and26werein“Modelthe way” sub-dimension of the original scale, they took part in “Inspiring a shared vision”sub-dimensionof theTurkish form.So“Model theway”sub-dimensionconsistingof5 itemsinoriginalscalewasdecreasedto3itemsinTurkishform.Asaconsequenceofthesechanges,“inspireasharedvision”sub-dimensionoftheTurkishformconsistedof9items,“challengetheprocess”sub-dimensionconsistedof5items,“encouragingtheheart”sub-dimensionconsistedof7itemsand“enableotherstoact”sub-dimensionconsistedof6items.Becauseoftheculturaldifferencesamongthesocieties,item16“Asksforfeedbackonhowhis/heractionsaffectotherpeople’sperformance”, item21“Buildsconsensusaroundacommonsetofvalues forrunningourorganization”anditem26“Isclearabouthis/herphilosophyofleadership”mayhavebeenconsideredin“inspireasharedvision”sub-dimensionofthescalebytheteachersworkinginTurkey.However,thescalekeptitsconstructionwith30itemsand5sub-dimensionsasitwasinoriginalscale.Asaresultofthecorrelationanalysis,ameaningfuldifferenceamongthefactorsofthescalewasdeterminedastheleast.79,themost.87(p<01).Aftertheseprocesses,CFAwasmovedoninTurkishadaptationprocess.

ResultsoftheConfirmatoryFactorAnalysisWithinthescopeofCFA,asthemodelcanbetheoreticallydeterminedpreviously,itcanalso

beamodelobtainedfromtheresultoftheEFA(Büyüköztürk,Akgün,Özkahveci&2004;Şimşek,2007).AftertheEFA,theconstructionofthescalewithfivedimensionswastestedbyusingthefirst-orderCFA.

Accordingtotheresultsofthefirst-orderfactoranalysisgiveninfigure1;adaptivevaluesofthemodelwasdeterminedasChi-square(χ

2=1190.84),Degreeoffreedom(df=395,P<0.00),

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI=0.85),Normed Fit Index (NFI= 0.91) RootMean Square Error ofApproximation(RMSE=0.068).

Thesevalueswerefoundsufficientforthefirst-orderCFAandthesecond-orderCFAwasmovedon.Accordingtothesecond-orderfactoranalysisgiveninfigure2;adaptivevaluesofthemodelwasdeterminedasChi-square(χ

2=1200.12),Degreeoffreedom(df=400,P<0.00),Goodness

ofFitIndex(GFI=0.84),NormedFitIndex(NFI=0.90)RootMeanSquareErrorofApproximation(RMSE=0.069).

0.85AndhigherGFI,AGFI,NFIvaluesobtainedfromthefirstandsecond-orderCFAweretheresultofthegoodcoherenceofthedatatothemodel.Furthermore,RMSEAvaluebetween0.05and0.10andχ

2/df=3.00showedthatthemodelwasinacceptableadaptivevalue(Kelloway,

1998;Cheng,2001;Pang,1996).After these processes, it was thought that validity of the scale has been provided and

reliabilityanalysisofthescalewasmovedon.ReliabilityofthescaleReliabilityofthescalewastestedbyusingCronbachα,SpearmanBrown,GutmannSplit-

HalftechniquesandtheresultsaregiveninTable3.

150 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

Tablo3.Reliability of the scale was tested by using Cronbach α, Spearman Brown, Gutmann Split-Halftechniques

Sub-dimensionsofthescale Cronbachα SpearmanBrown GuttmanSplit-HalfR p R p R p

LeadershipPracticesInventory .98 .00 .96 .00 .95 .00ModeltheWay .82 .00 .85 .00 .78 .00InspiredtheSharedVision .95 .00 .94 .00 .93 .00ChallengeTheProcess .87 .00 .86 .00 .83 .00EncouragingtheHeart .92 .00 .92 .00 .90 .00EnableOtherstoAct .91 .00 .91 .00 .91 .00

Cronbachαvalueofthewholescalewasdeterminedas.98.Cronbachαvaluesofthesub-dimensionsofthescaleweredeterminedasrespectively.82for“Modaltheway,.95for“inspirea sharedvision”, .87 for“challenge theprocess”,and .92 forencouraging theheart”.Besides,split-halftestreliabilityofthescalewascalculatedbyusingSpearmanBrownformulaanditwasobservedthatsplit-halftestreliabilityofthewholescalewas.96andthesplit-halftestreliabilityof thesub-dimensionswerebetween .85and .96.Furthermore,split-half testreliabilityof thescalehasbeencalculatedbyusingGuttmanSplit-Halftechniqueandcorrelationcoefficientofthewholescalewasdeterminedas.95andcorrelationvaluesforthesub-dimensionswerebetween.83and.95.

Table4.Correcteditem-totalcorrelationsofLeadershipPracticesScaleandthevaluesrelatedtodifferencesof27percentagelower-highergroups

Factor ItemNo RecoveredItemTotalCorrelation t

Model

the

Way

1 .68 -16.32**2 .69 -23.53**3 .68 -21.58**

InspiredtheShared

Vision

4 .83 -21.26**5 .79 -23.32**6 .77 -22.99**7 .79 -22.67**8 .81 -25.21**9 .83 -22.53**10 .80 -23.34**11 .76 -21.24**12 .79 -23.23**

Challenge

The

Process

13 .70 -16.37**14 .69 -16.52**15 .72 -20.20**16 .71 -21.70**17 .66 -16.95**

Encouraging

theHeart

18 .80 -20.10**19 .72 -16.31**20 .84 -21.72***21 .76 -19.79**22 .75 -21.84**23 .72 -15.64**24 .78 -22.14**

Enable

OtherstoAct 25 .68 -12.10**

26 .78 -19.08**27 .83 -24.69**28 71 -17.78**29 .71 -18.11**30 .78 -20.01**

**p<.01

151ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

AccordingtoBüyüköztürk(2004),itemtotalcorrelationexplainstherelationbetweenthepointstaken

fromthetestitemsandthetotalpointsofthetest.Highandpositivetotal-itemcorrelationshowsthatitemsexemplifysimilarbehaviors.Statisticalrelevancecanbetakenasacriterionininterpretingthetotal-itemcorrelation.Furthermore,itisusuallyacceptedthatitemswhichhave.30andhigheritemtotalcorrelationdistinguishtheindividualswell.Anotherwayintheextendofitemanalysisistotestthedifferencesbetweentheitemaveragepointsofthe27percentagelowergroupand27percentagehighergroupconstitutedaccordingtototalpointsofthetestbyusingnon-related t test.Observedmeaningfuldifferences canbeevaluatedasan indicatorofinternalcoherenceofthetest.

Accordingtotheresultofthedataanalysis,itwasobservedthatitemtotalcorrelationsofLeadershipPracticesScalewerebetween.66and.84,tvalues(df=155)relatedtothedifferencesinitempointsof27percentagelowerandhighergroupsdeterminedaccordingtototalpointswerebetween-12.10and-24.69(P<.001).Inthesepremises,itwasconcludedthatitemsdistinguishedtheindividualswellandthetesthadintervalcoherence.

Discussion

AimofthisresearchisdeterminedasadaptingtheLeadershipPracticeInventorydevelopedbyKouzes&Posner(2003)toTurkish.

Duringtheadaptationofthescale,itwasfirsttranslatedintoTurkishbyEnglishteachingexperts;thentheTurkishtextwasretranslatedintoEnglish,comparedwiththeoriginaltextandfoundtobeidenticalwithit. ThenTurkishandEnglishformsofthescalewereappliedto25EnglishLanguageTeachers.Pearsoncorrelationcoefficientswereobservedforbotheachitemandsub-dimensionsattheendoftheapplicationoftheTurkishandEnglishforms.ThecorrelationcoefficientsbetweenTurkishandEnglish formswere calculatedas totally .91.The correlationcoefficientsbetweensub-dimensionswerecalculatedasrespectively.72for“modeltheway”,.92for‘inspireasharedvision’,.86for“challengetheprocess”,.85for“encouragingtheheart”and.84for“enableotherstoact”.Itwasdeterminedthatthecorrelationcoefficientsamongeachitemofthescalewerealsohigh.

SubsequenttopermissionobtainmentfromtheMinistryofNationalEducational,thescalewasadministeredbytheresearcherto436peopleconsistingofprimaryandsecondaryschoolteachersandthedataobtainedwereanalyzedusingSPSS16.0.Duringtheanalysis,whenKaiser-Meyer-Olkintestwasfoundtobe .82andBartlett’stestwassignificant(X2=9.470,P=0,00),EFAwasconducted.AccordingtoresultsoftheEFA,originalconstructionwith30itemsand5sub-dimensionswerekept.However,itwasobservedthatsomeoftheitemswereindifferentsub-dimensionsfromtheoriginalone.Itwasthoughtthatthereasonsofthesechangeswerebecauseoftheculturaldifferencesofthecountries.Asaresultofthecorrelationanalysisofthescale,ameaningful relationamong the factorsof the scalewasdeterminedas .79 for the lowest leveland.87(p<.01)forthehighestlevel.Afterthisprocess,validityfactoranalysiswasdoneduringTurkishadaptationprocess.

AftertheEFA,theconstructionofthescalewith5dimensionswastestedbyvalidityfactoranalysis.Validity factoranalysiswasperformedbyusingLisrel8.51packageprogram. Itwasobservedthattheadaptivevaluesobtainedfromthefirst-ordervalidityfactoranalysisprovidedthecriteriadeterminedbyKelloway,1998;Cheng,2001&Pang,1996andthesecond-orderfactoranalysisprocesswasmovedon.Accordingtotheresultsgiveninfigure2,itwasobservedthatsecond-orderanalysiswasfitforthecriteriainthefirst-orderanalysis.AsaresultofthevalidityfactoranalysisbyKouzes&Posner(2003),adaptationvaluesoforiginalscalewerecalculatedas(Chi-Square=399.9,df.=363,p<.09).ThesevaluesshowedaparallelismbetweenChi-Square/dfvaluesgiveninfigures1and2whichisadaptedtoTurkish.

152 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

Afterthisprocess,thevalueofthescalewasthoughttohavebeenprovidedandreliabilityanalysisprocessofthescalewasmovedon.TheCronbachαvaluesofthescalewerecalculatedas.82for“Modeltheway”.95for‘inspireasharedvision’,.87for“challengetheprocess”and.92for“encouragingtheheart”.Intheresearchevaluatedworkers’leaders’leadershipapplicationsbyKouzes&Posner(2003),CronbachAlphacoefficientofthescalewascalculatedasbetween.87and.93.Additiontothis,Itwasobservedthatsplit-halftestreliabilityofthescalewascalculatedbyusingSpearmanBrownformulaandsplit-halftestofreliabilityofthewholescalewas.96andalsothesub-dimensionswerebetween.85and.96.Besides,split-halftestreliabilitywascalculatedbyusingGuttmanSplit-Halftechniqueandcorrelationcoefficientwascalculatedas.95forthewholescaleandbetween .83and .95 for thesub-dimensions.Asa lastphaseof thereliabilityanalysisofthescale,thedifferencesamongitemstotalcorrelationsandthedifferencesamongitemsaveragepointswerecalculatedbyusingthettest.

Accordingtotheresultofthedataanalysis,itwasobservedthatitemtotalcorrelationsofLeadershipPracticesScalewerebetween.66and.84,tvalues(df=155)relatedtothedifferencesinitempointsof27percentagelowerandhighergroupsdeterminedaccordingtototalpointswerebetween-12.10and-24.69(P<.001).Inthesepremises,itwasconcludedthatitemsdistinguishedtheindividualswellandthetesthadintervalcoherence.

Asaresultofthevalidityandreliabilityanalysis, itwasthoughtthatTurkishadaptationprocessof the scalewascompleted. It couldbeasserted thatafter theseprocesses, leadershippracticesscalehadthequalityofmeasuringtheleadershippracticesoftheprincipalsinTurkishEducationSystem.

References

Arnold, J.A., Arad,S.,. Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadershipquestionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leaderbehaviors.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,21,249-269.

Barth,R.(1990).Improvingschoolsfromwithin.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Bakay,E.&Kalem,G.(2009).TürkEğitimSistemiveEtkiliOkulGöstergeleriProjectBasedSchool

ManagementProjectNumber:142320-LLP-1-2008-1-TR-COMENIUS-CMP.Bartell,C.(1990).Outstandingsecondaryprincipalsreflectoninstructionalleadership.TheHigh

SchoolJournal,73(2),118-128.Bass,B.M.&Avolio,B.J. (1995)TheMultifactorLeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ),RedwoodCity:

MindGarden.Blase,J.,&Blase,J.R.(1994).Empoweringteachers:Whatsuccessfulprincipalsdo.ThousandOaks,

CA:CorwinPress.Bilgen,N.(1990).Örgütİklimi. Ankara:TODAIE.Bycio,P.,Hackett,R.D.,&Allen,J.S.(1995).FurtherassessmentsofBass’1985conceptualizationof

transactionalandtransformationalleadership.JournalofAppliedPsychology,80(4),468–478.Büyüköztürk,Ş.(2004).SosyalBilimlerİçinVeriAnaliziElKitabı.Ankara:PegemAYayıncılık.Büyüköztürk, S.,Akgün,Ö.E.,Demirel, F.,&Özkahveci,Ö. (2004).GüdülenmeveÖgrenme

Stratejileri Ölçegi’nin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalısması. Kuram veUygulamadaEgitimBilimleri,4(2),207-239.

Carless,S.A.,WearingA.J.&Mann,L. (2000)Ashortmeasureof transformational leadership.JournalofBusinessandPsychology,14(3),389–405.

Cheng,E.W.L.(2001).SEMbeingmoreeffectivethanmultipleregressioninparsimoniousmodeltestingformanagementdevolopmentresearch.JournalofManagementDevelopment,20(7),650-667

153ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: perceivedbehavioralattributesandtheirmeasurement,JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,15(5),439–452.

Deal,T.,&Peterson,K.(1999).Shapingschoolculture.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Donaldson, G.A. (2006).Cultivation leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, & practice

(Seconded.).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.Harris,A.,&Lambert,L.(2003).Buildingleadershipcapacityforschoolimprovement.Philadelphia,

PA:OpenUniversityPress.Johnson,J.F.,Jr.,&Asera,R.,(Eds.)(1999).Hopeforurbaneducation:Astudyofninehigh-performing,

high-poverty, urban elementary schools.Washington, DC: Policy StudiesAssociates, Inc.,WashingtonDC.Austin,TX:CharlesADanaCenter.RetrievedSeptember21,2005fromwww.ed.gov/PDFDocs/urbaned.pdf.

Kelloway,E.K. (1998)UsingLisrel for structural equationmodeling:Aresearcher’sguide.London:SagePublications.

Kouzes,J.M.,&Posner,B.Z.(2001).Leadershippracticesinventory[LPI]Revisedsecondeditiononlineversionparticipant’sworkbook.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Kouzes,J.M.,&Posner,B.Z.(2003).TheLeadershipPracticesInventory:Observer(3rded.).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J.,Zhao,H.,&Henderson,D.(2008).Servantleadership:Developmentofamultidimensionalmeasureandmulti-levelassessment.TheLeadershipQuarterly,19,161-177.

McKeever,B.,&CSLA.(2003).Ninelessonsofsuccessfulschoolleadershipteams.SanFrancisco:WestEd.

Méndez-Morse,S.(1991).Theprincipal’sroleintheinstructionalprocess:Implicationsforat-riskstudents.Issues...AboutChange,1(3).SouthwestEducationalDevelopmentLaboratory,Austin,TX.

Özdemir,S.(2000).EğitimdeÖrgütselYenileşme.Ankara:PegemYayıncılık.Özgüven,İ.E.(1994).PsikolojikTestler.Ankara:YeniDoğuşMatbaası.Pang,N.S.K.(1996).Schoolvaluesandteachers’feelings:ALisrelmodel.JournalofEducational

Administration,34(2),64-83.Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and

empiricalextensions.TheLeadershipQuarterly,15,329-354.Seifert,E.H.,Vornberg,J.A.(2002).Thenewschoolleaderforthe21stcentury:Theprincipal.Maryland:

ScarecrowEducation.Scheurich,J.J.(1998).Highlysuccessfulandlovingpublicelementaryschoolspopulatedmainly

bylowseschildrenofcolor: Corebeliefsandculturalcharacteristics.UrbanEducation,33(4),451-491.

Sheppard,B.,&Brown,J.(2000).Leadershipandthetransformationofsecondaryschoolsintolearningorganisations.InK.Leithwood(Ed.),Understandingschoolsasintelligentsystems(pp.293–314).Stamford,Connecticut:JAIPress.

Sheppard,B.,&Brown,J.,Dibbon,D.(2009).Schooldistrictleadershipmatters(Vol.6).Netherlands:SpringerNetherlands.

Sizemore,B.(1985).Pitfallsandpromisesofeffectiveschoolsresearch.JournalofNegroEducation,54(3),269-288.

Steller,A.W. (1988).Effective schools research: Practice andPromise.Bloomington, IN: PhiDeltaKappaFoundation.

154 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

Şimşek,Ö.F.(2007).YapısalEşitlikModellemesineGiriş:TemelİlkelerveLisrelUygulamaları.Ankara:EkinoksYayıncılık.

Tabachnick,B.G.&Fidell,L.S.(1996).Usingmultivariatestatistics(3.Ed.).NewYork:HarpercollinsCollegePublishers.

Tomlinson,H. (2004). Educational leadership: Personal growth for professional development.ThousandOaks,California:SAGEPublicationsInc.

Valentine, J.W., & Bowman,M.L. (1988).Audit of principal effectiveness:Amethod for self-improvement.NASSPBulletin,72(508),18-26.

Wendel,F.C.,Hoke,F.A.,&Joekel,R.G.(1996).Outstandingschooladministrators:Theirkeystosuccess.Westport,CT:Praeger.

Figure1:Theresultoffirst-orderCFA

155ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

Figure2:Theresultofsecond-orderCFA

156 MUSTAFAYAVUZ

LeadershipPracticesInventory®,copyright2003,JamesM.KouzesandBarryZ.Posner.Allrightsreserved.PublishedbyPfeiffer,AnImprintofJohnWiley&Sons,Inc.

LİDERLİKUYGULAMALARIÖLÇEĞİTÜRKÇEFORMU

Lütfengörevyaptığınızokulunmüdürüileilgiliaşağıdaverilenifadelerekatılmaderecenizixşeklindeişaretleyiniz

Herzaman

Çoğunlukla

Bazen

Nadiren

Hiçbir

zaman

Başkalarındanbeklediklerinikendisideyaparakbirmodel1.oluşturur.Enerjivezamanınıbirlikteçalıştığıinsanlarınüzerindeuzlaştığı2.konularaharcar.Yükümlülüklerinivevaatlerinimükemmelbirşekildeyerine3.getirir.Ulaşılmayıistediğimizvizyonumuzuşekillendirir.4.Ulaşılabiliramaçlarıbelirler,somutplanlaryapar,üzerinde5.çalıştığımızprogramveprojeleriçinölçülebilirhedeflerortayakoyar.Liderlikilkeleriaçıktır.6.Ortakdeğerlerebağlanmakonusundaörnekolaninsanları7.herkesinönündeaçıkçatakdireder.Başarıyıkutlamanınyollarınıbulur.8.Örgütügeliştirmekiçinortakdeğerlerleetrafındauzlaşmasağlar.9.Davranışlarınıninsanlarınasıletkilediğiileilgiligeribildirimler10.alır.Zihnimizde,gelecekteulaşmakistediğimiznoktanınheyecanverici11.birresminişekillendirir.İnsanlarınortakgörüşünündesteğinialarakuzundönemli12.çalışmalariçerisinegirebilir.Yeteneklerinitestetmekiçinfırsatlararar.13.Gelecektekigelişmelerinbugünküçalışmalarımızınasıl14.etkileyeceğiileilgilikonuşur.İşlerimizigeliştirmeninyeniyollarınıbulmakiçinokuldışında15.arayışiçerisindedirİnsanlarınçalışmalarındadeğişiklerveyenilikleryapabilme16.yeteneğinitesteder.Çalışanlarlagelecekleilgilihayalettiklerinipaylaşır.17.İşiniiyiyapaninsanlarıtakdireder.18.İnsanları,başarılarıvekatkılarıiçinödüllendirir.19.Takımüyelerinikatkılarındandolayıdesteklervetakdireder.20.Kendisiilebirlikteçalışanlararasındaişbirliğinigeliştirir.21.İnsanlarınyeteneklerineolangüveninisöylemeyeönemverir.22.İnsanlaradeğerverirvesaygıduyar.23.İnsanlarınkendilerinigeliştirmelerinivemesleklerindeyeni24.becerileredinmelerinidestekler.İşlerininasılyapacaklarıkonusundainsanlarıözgürbırakır.25.Çalışmalarımızınöneminiveamacınısamimibirşekildeaçıklar.26.İnsanlarıkendikararlarınıverebilmeleriiçindestekler.27.Başarısızlıksözkonusuolsabile,riskalmaktançekinmez.28.Farklıbakışaçısınasahipfikirleridinlemekonusundaisteklidir.29.Başarısızlıklarıdaöğrenmefırsatıolarakdeğerlendirir.30.

157ADAPTATIONOFTHELEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORY(LPI)TOTURKISH

SUB-DIMENSIONSOFLEADERSHIPPRACTICESINVENTORYTurkishversion OriginalversionModelOlma ModeltheWay(MW)PaylaşılanVizyonOluşturma InspiringaSharedVision(IS)RiskAlma ChallengingTheProcess(CP)TanımaveTakdirEtme EncouragingTheHeart(EH)TakımÇalışmasınaOdaklanma EnablingOthersToAct(EO)