ساخت، اعتبار یابی و روایی‌یابی ابزار سنجش نگرش به نقش اجتماعی زنان در بین دانشجویان
محورهای موضوعی : زن و جامعهمجید یوسفی افراشته 1 , زهرا حسینی 2 , زهرا محققی 3
1 - استادیار گروه روانشناسی، دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران
2 - کارشناسی ارشد روانشناسی عمومی، دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران
3 - کارشناس ارشد روانشناسی، گروه روانشناسی، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران
کلید واژه: زنان, روانسنجی, نگرش به زنان,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه و هدف: یکی از ابعاد مهم در حوزه نارضایتی زنان نسبت به برخوردهای اجتماعی، نگرش های اجتماعی است که نسبت به آنها شکل گرفته است. با وجود اهمیت این موضوع، نبود ابزار سنجشی مناسبی برای پرداختن علمی به آن از موانع اصلی است. به همین منظور در پژوهش حاضر تلاش شده است ابزار روا و معتبری برای سنجش نگرش به زنان در بین دانشجویان تهیه شود.
مواد و روشها: با توجه به هدف، پژوهش حاضر از نوع «تحقیق و توسعه» است. جامعه پژوهش حاضر شامل کلیه دانشجویان مقاطع کارشناسی، کارشناسی ارشد و دکترای دانشگاه های آزاد اسلامی، پیام نور، علوم پایه، علوم پزشکی و سراسری در چهار گروه رشته تحصیلی علوم انسانی، علوم پزشکی، علوم پایه، فنی و مهندسی و هنر شهر زنجان است که در نیمسال دوم سال تحصیلی95-1394 ثبت نام تحصیلی کرده اند.
یافتهها: نتایج تحلیل عاکلی اکتشافی و تاییدی پنج عامل زیربنایی، شغلی(با 7 سؤال)، خانوادگی(با 7 سؤال)، روابط اجتماعی(با 5 سؤال)، عاطفی-جنسی(با 5 سؤال) و رهبری و مدیریت(با 4 سؤال) را برای ابزار نگرش به زنان تعیین کرد. این پنج عامل در مجموع با 28 سؤال اندازه گیری میشوند و در مجموع 60/70 درصد از واریانس کل سؤال ها را تبیین می کنند.
بحث و نتیجهگیری: با شناسایی این عوامل زیربنایی می توان از ابزار این پژوهش در پژوهش های مرتبط با زنان برای شناخت بیشتر و آموزش ها و برنامه ریزی های مؤثر استفاده کرد.
Introduction:One of the important dimensions in the field of women's dissatisfaction with social decisions is the social attitudes towards them. Despite the importance of this issue, the lack of appropriate measurement tools is one of the main obstacles. In the present study, an attempt has been made to provide a valid and credible tool for measuring attitudes toward women among students.
Materials and Methods:According to the purpose, the present research is of "research and development". Research population includes all undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students of Islamic Azad, Payame Noor, basic sciences, medical and national universities in four groups of humanities, medical sciences, basic sciences, engineering and art in Zanjan, who have registered for the second semester of the 2015-2016 academic year.
Findings:The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed five underlying factors: occupational, occupational, family, social, emotional-sexual, and leadership and management factors for attitudes toward women. These five factors are measured by a total of 28 questions and 60/70% of the variance explains the total questions.
Conclusion:By identifying these underlying factors, the tools of this research can be used in research related to women for more knowledge and effective training and planning.
1.Safdar S, Kosakowska-Berezecka N. Psychology of Gender through the Lens of Culture. SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PU; 2016.
2. Rudman LA, Glick P. The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. Guilford Press; 2012 Aug 22.
3. Duflo E. Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic literature. 2012 Dec;50(4):1051-79.
4. Sen A. Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor). SOUTH INDIAN ICT CLUSTERS. 1999;227.
5. Guiso L, Sapienza P, Zingales L. People's opium? Religion and economic attitudes. Journal of monetary economics. 2003 Jan 1;50(1):225-82.
6. Morrisson C, Jütting JP. Women’s discrimination in developing countries: A new data set for better policies. World Development. 2005 Jul 1;33(7):1065-81.
7.Cavalcanti T, Tavares J. The output cost of gender discrimination: a model-based macroeconomic estimate.
8.UNDP. Human Development Report2015. NewYork: Work for Human
9. Baumgartner MS, Schneider DE. Perceptions of women in management: A thematic analysis of razing the glass ceiling. Journal of Career Development. 2010 Aug;37(2):559-76.
10. Loko B, Diouf MA. Revisiting the determinants of productivity growth: What's new?.
11. Riger S, Galligan P. Women in management: An exploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist. 1980 Oct;35(10):902.
12. Barreto ME, Ryan MK, Schmitt MT. The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. American Psychological Association; 2009.
13. Koyuncu M, Burke RJ, Wolpin J. Work‐family conflict, satisfactions and psychological well‐being among women managers and professionals in Turkey. Gender in Management: An International Journal. 2012 May 4.
14. Vinnicombe S, Doldor E, Sealy R, Pryce P, Turner C. The female FTSE board report 2015.
15. Sadeghi, N., hasani, J., Moradi, A., Mohammadkhani, S. The Validity، Reliability and Factor Structure of the Short Version of Attitude toward Women Scale. Scientific Research Quarterly of Woman and Culture, 2017, 9(32), 7-19.
16. Mattis MC. Organizational initiatives in the USA for advancing managerial women. Women in Management: Current Research Issues. Paul Chapman, London. 1994 Oct 28:241-76.
17. Tharenou P. Gender differences in advancing to the top. International Journal of Management Reviews. 1999 Jun;1(2):111-32.
18. Rezaiean Gharagozlou A, Rostamalizadeh V. Factors deterrent women's economic participation by families in the local community (Case study of women in Behdeh, Parsian city). Quarterly Journal of Women and Society. 2020 Apr 20;11(41):53-78.
19. Ashenafi, M. Factors Affecting Women Participation in Politics and Decision making. A Dissertation of MA Thesis 2009.
20. Ronald I, Pippa N. Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
21. Wirth L. Women in management: Closer to breaking through the glass ceiling. Women, gender and work. 2001.
22. Siaroff A. Women’s representation in legislatures and cabinets in industrial democracies. International political science review. 2000 Apr;21(2):197-215.
23. Lyness KS, Terrazas JM. Women in management: An update on their progress and persistent challenges. International review of industrial and organizational psychology. 2006 Jan 1;21:267.
24. Rezaee H. Investigating the Impact of Women's Employment on Economic Growth in Selected Middle East Countries: Using the Panel Data. Quarterly Journal of Women and Society. 2020 Jun 21; 11(42):207-26.
25. Patel CJ, Johns L. Gender role attitudes and attitudes to abortion: Are there gender differences? The Social Science Journal. 2009 Sep 1;46(3):493-505.
26. Bhanot S, Senn CY. Attitudes towards violence against women in men of south Asian ancestry: are acculturation and gender role attitudes important factors?. Journal of Family Violence. 2007 Jan; 22(1):25-31.
27. Lee J, Kim J, Lim H. Rape myth acceptance among Korean college students: The roles of gender, attitudes toward women, and sexual double standard. Journal of interpersonal violence. 2010 Jul;25(7):1200-23.
28. Spence JT, Helmreich RL. The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. American Psychological Association; 1972.
29. Spence JT, Helmreich R, Stapp J. A short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic society. 1973 Oct; 2(4):219-20.
30. Chia RC, Allred LJ, Jerzak PA. Attitudes toward women in Taiwan and China: Current status, problems, and suggestions for future research. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1997 Mar; 21(1):137-50.
31. Delevi R, Bugay A. Assessing reliability and validity of the 15-item short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS) among Turkish students.
32. Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., & Hejazi, E. Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences (8thed.). 2019, Agah Press.
33. Bazagan, A., Dadras, M., & Yousefi Afrashteh, M. Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure the Quality of Academic Services to Students. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education., 2014 20(2).
34. Spence JT, Helmreich RL. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. University of Texas Press; 1979 Jun 1.
35. Chau PY. Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences. 1997 Apr; 28(2):309-34.
36. Churchill Jr GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research. 1979 Feb; 16(1):64-73.
37. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis (Fifth Edition Ed.). New Jersey, Englewood Cliffs: Printice-Hall Inc, 1998.
38. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research. 1981 Feb; 18(1):39-50.
39. Farrell AM. Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of business research. 2010 Mar 1; 63(3):324-7.
40. Soltanifar, M; hashemi, SH and yaghoobi rad, F. The relationship between cultural factors and women's civil rights. Journal of Cultural Management, 2011, 5(2), 1-18.
41. Norouzi, F., & Golparvar, M. A Study of Women's Perception of Enjoying Citizen's Rights and Factors Affecting It. Rahbord, 2011, 20(59), 167-190.
42. Ahmadi, S., Dokoohaki, L., Hajipour, M. The Relationship between Awareness of Citizenship Rights and the Quality of Life among Women Aged between 25-44 in Shiraz. Quarterly Journal of Women and Society, 2016, 7(25), 29-44.
43. Loo R, Thorpe K. Attitudes toward women's roles in society: A replication after 20 years. Sex Roles. 1998 Dec;39(11):903-12.
44. Donnelly K, Twenge JM, Clark MA, Shaikh SK, Beiler-May A, Carter NT. Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976–2013. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2016 Mar;40(1):41-54.
_||_