Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

The Validity and Reliability of the Mobbing Scale (MS)

Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

The Validity and Reliability of the Mobbing Scale (MS)

Article excerpt

Abstract

The aim of this research is to develop the Mobbing Scale and examine its validity and reliability. The sample of the study consisted of 515 persons from Sakarya and Bursa. In this study, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and item analysis of the scale were examined. As a result of factor analysis for construct validity, four factors have emerged which are named humiliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, and communication barriers. These subscales consist of 23 items and account for the 59.97% of the total variance. The internal consistency reliability coefficients were .91 for humiliation, .77 for discrimination, .79 for sexual harassment, and .79 for communication barriers. Findings also demonstrated that item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .78. Test-retest reliability coeffi cients were .78 and .91 for four subscales, respectively. The item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .78. According to these fi ndings the Mobbing Scale can be regarded as a valid and reliable instrument that could be used in the fi eld of education and psychology.

Key Words

Mobbing, Validity, Reliability.

In recent years, especially in industrialized countries, "mobbing", which is spreading among workers because of increased competition in organizations, and aimed for putting the target person away from the work place, is causing the work life to become unhealthy in psychological dimension (Tan, 2005). As a concept, mobbing is defined as emotional assaults subjected to an employee working in an organization, and done for diff erent reasons, by the superior(s)/colleague(s) or subordinate(s). After all, in the studies of mobbing, it is seen that although the contents are the same, diff erent concepts are used interchangeably. For example, the terms bullying/victimization, emotional abuse, maltreatment/mistreatment, harassment and abuse are some of the concepts often used to define mobbing (Yaman, 2007, 2009).

While Field (1996) deals with mobbing as constant and cruel attacks to a victim's self-confidence and self-esteem by a bully, Namie and Namie (2003) express that the concept of mobbing involves all kinds of negative attitudes in the work place. Mobbing is also thought as off ensive behaviors that are not refl ected out like harassment (Fineman, Sims, & Gabriel, 2005). Studies based on the implementation show that victims' character and psychosocial factors are the two reasons of mobbing at work (Einarsen, 1999). Poor working conditions can also be seen among the reasons of mobbing (Zapf, 1999). The refl ections of the mobbing on employees are seen as being excluded in the organization, harassment, sexual harassment, maltreatment, communicative obstacles, not assigning a task, giving task below/under the capacity, inhibiting legal rights, arrogance and degrading employees, misinforming, not transferring the knowledge, using the employee for self benefits, humiliation, and bringing down.

Mobbing at work comes out in diff erent ways. Downwards Mobbing is where employees are subjected to such treatment by their superiors in rank or position. Upwards Mobbing is opposite, meaning superiors are subjected such treatment by employees. (this is very rare). Horizontal Mobbing is present among the employees by the colleagues (Branch, Sheehan, Barker, & Ramsay, 2004). In addition, in research indicates two kinds of mobbing as individual and group mobbing (Yagil, 2004).

Leymann (1996), one of the foremost researchers of this field, investigated the people claimed as "uneasy" in an organization, and found that the claimed people weren't in fact uneasy, and that their behaviors weren't caused by personality defect. Leymann, then, brought out that the working conditions and culture of the organization created an atmosphere that stamped those people as "uneasy". While studying these eff ects in working places in Sweden, Leymann wrote that systematically hostile and unmoral communication subjected to one person by one or more person(s) is defined as mobbing (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott, 2003). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.