Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of the Leisure Constraint Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study to adapt to Turkish version by applying validity and reliability test of Leisure Constraint Questionnaire (LCQ) developed by Alexander and Carroll (1997). 214 (62.4%) men and 129 (37.6%) women, total of 343 people was participated to the study working as public officers in Iğdır. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Reliability Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was applied to Turkish version of the scale after translated to Turkish. When the EFA results are examined Anti Imaj Correlation (AIC) cross correlation coefficients of all items greater than 0.5 and It has been decided to use all items in the analysis. After Principal Component Analaysis (PCA), there are 7 factors with eigenvalue greater than 1 and the contribution of these factors to the total variance is 56.806% were determined. The factors belonging to the items were determined by Rotated Component Matrix (VARIMAX). The tests of Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), Spearman-Brown Correlation (SBC) and Guttman Split Half Correlation (GSHC) were performed for reliability of the scale. The value of CA: 0.876, SBC: 0.754 and GSHC: 0.754 were found for the all items. Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and he Normed Fit Index (NFI) were used for the CFA. As a result of CFA analysis; the value of CFI: 0.94, GFI: 0.96 and NFI: 0.93 were found. It has been concluded that the scale of adaptation to Turkish is valid and reliable and also it was composed of 7 factors and 29 items like original scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".