Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Developing the University Entrepreneurial Environment Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2023, 100th Anniversary Special Issue, 43 - 63, 27.12.2023

Ercan Eğin Rabia Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1235543

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to create a reliable and valid tool to measure the attitudes of academicians towards the university entrepreneurial environment. The participants consist of 686 academics who work in the first 50 universities in the 2020 TUBITAK Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index. In the development of the assessment tool, a seven-stage model was followed, consisting of determining the purpose of the test and the features to be measured, literature review and creation of an item pool, examination of technical supervision and language intelligibility, obtaining expert opinion (scope validity), pilot application and determining the psychometric properties of the test (validity and reliability). Factor analysis was used to examine the construct validity of the scale. After confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, it was seen that the scale showed a one-dimensional structure consisting of 19 items. The Cronbach's Alpha, Mean Explained Variance (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) values were calculated as 0.98, 0.74 and 0.98. As a result of the findings of this study, it was concluded that the University Entrepreneurial Environment Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.
Key Words: Entrepreneurial University, University Entrepreneurial Environment Scale, Validity, Reliability
JEL Classification: I23,L26,M14

Keywords

Girişimci Üniversite Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeği Geçerlik Güvenirlik

References

  • ACEEU. (2016). Standards & Guidelines Entrepreneurial University Accreditation, ACEEU, Amsterdam, https://www.aceeu.org, (22.12.2022).
  • Ahmad, S. Z., ve Xavier, S. R. (2012). Entrepreneurial environments and growth: evidence from Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
  • Aksu, G., Eser, M. T., ve Güzeller, C. O. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Al Harthy, S. H. M. (2014). The entrepreneurial university and the entrepreneurial environment: organizational analysis and policy considerations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.
  • Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA Press.
  • Ayre, C., ve Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86.
  • Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., ve Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
  • Byrne, B. M., ve Fayolle, A. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions. OECD, Paris.
  • Clark B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon, 127-148.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.
  • Crow, M. M. (2008, June). Building an entrepreneurial university. In The future of the Research University: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century, 11-30.
  • Crowley, S. L., ve Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of personality assessment, 68(3), 508-531.
  • Cudeck, R., ve MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Routledge.
  • Çetin, E. (2021). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumları ve Girişimcilik Niyetleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 153-180.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
  • EC-OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Final version, 18 December 2012. https://www.utadeo.edu.co/files/collections/documents/field_ attached_file/ec-oecd_entrepreneurial_universities_framework.pdf, (21.12.2022).
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social science information, 42(3), 293-337.
  • Etzkowitz, H., (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York.
  • Fava, J. L., ve Velicer, W. F. (1992). The Effects of Overextraction on Factor and Component Analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 27(3), 387–415.
  • Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., ve Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European industrial training, 30(9), 701-720.
  • Field A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.
  • Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 16742.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, Cengage Learning, Andover. Hampshire, United Kingdom.
  • Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., ve Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research policy, 32(9), 1555-1568.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
  • Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler, (2. Yazım, 32. Bsm). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koyuncu, İ., ve Kılıç, A. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizlerinin Kullanımı: Bir Doküman İncelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198).
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.
  • Mabel, O. A., ve Olayemi, O. S. (2020). A Comparison of Principal Component Analysis, Maximum Likelihood and the Principal Axis in Factor Analysis.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., ve Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models. 275–340.
  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., ve Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
  • Mudde, H., Widhiani, A. P., ve Fauzi, A. M. (2017). Entrepreneurial university transformation in Indonesia: a comprehensive assessment of IPB. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 5(1).
  • Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada Araştırma Teknikleri (Veri Toplama Araçları-Metrik ve Metrik Olmayan Analizler-Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analizler). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • OECD. (1998). Fostering Entrepreneurship: The OECD Job Strategy. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/fosteringentrepreneurship.htm, (23.12.2022).
  • Preston, C. C., ve Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., ve Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
  • Şahin, A., ve Kartal, B. (2011). Pazarlama Araştırması. İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics. . 7th Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Velicer, W. F., ve Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods, 3(2), 231.

Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Bir Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2023, 100th Anniversary Special Issue, 43 - 63, 27.12.2023

Ercan Eğin Rabia Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1235543

Abstract

Bu araştırmada akademisyenlerin üniversite girişimcilik ortamına ilişkin tutumlarını ölçmeye yönelik güvenilir ve geçerli bir aracın oluşturulması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını 2020 TÜBİTAK Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Üniversite Endeksindeki ilk 50 üniversitede görev yapan ve ölçme aracını eksiksiz ve doğru olarak yanıtlayan 686 akademisyen oluşturmaktadır. Ölçme aracının geliştirilmesinde testin amacının ve ölçülecek özelliklerin belirlenmesi, literatür taraması ve madde havuzunun oluşturulması, teknik denetim ve dil anlaşılırlığının incelenmesi, uzman görüşü alma (kapsam geçerliği), pilot uygulama ve testin psikometrik özelliklerinin belirlenmesinden (geçerlik ve güvenirlik) oluşan yedi aşamalı model izlenmiştir. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğinin incelenmesinde faktör analizinden yararlanılmış, gerçekleştirilen doğrulayıcı ve açımlayıcı faktör analizleri sonrasında ölçeğin 19 maddeden oluşan tek boyutlu bir yapı gösterdiği görülmüştür. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa, Ortalama Açıklanan Varyans (AVE) ve Kompozit Güvenilirlik (CR) değerleri sırasıyla 0,98 , 0,74 ve 0,98 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Girişimci Üniversite, Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeği, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik
JEL Sınıflandırması: I23,L26,M14

Keywords

Girişimci Üniversite Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeği Geçerlik Güvenirlik

References

  • ACEEU. (2016). Standards & Guidelines Entrepreneurial University Accreditation, ACEEU, Amsterdam, https://www.aceeu.org, (22.12.2022).
  • Ahmad, S. Z., ve Xavier, S. R. (2012). Entrepreneurial environments and growth: evidence from Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
  • Aksu, G., Eser, M. T., ve Güzeller, C. O. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Al Harthy, S. H. M. (2014). The entrepreneurial university and the entrepreneurial environment: organizational analysis and policy considerations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.
  • Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA Press.
  • Ayre, C., ve Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86.
  • Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., ve Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
  • Byrne, B. M., ve Fayolle, A. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions. OECD, Paris.
  • Clark B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon, 127-148.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.
  • Crow, M. M. (2008, June). Building an entrepreneurial university. In The future of the Research University: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century, 11-30.
  • Crowley, S. L., ve Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of personality assessment, 68(3), 508-531.
  • Cudeck, R., ve MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Routledge.
  • Çetin, E. (2021). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumları ve Girişimcilik Niyetleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 153-180.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
  • EC-OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Final version, 18 December 2012. https://www.utadeo.edu.co/files/collections/documents/field_ attached_file/ec-oecd_entrepreneurial_universities_framework.pdf, (21.12.2022).
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social science information, 42(3), 293-337.
  • Etzkowitz, H., (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York.
  • Fava, J. L., ve Velicer, W. F. (1992). The Effects of Overextraction on Factor and Component Analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 27(3), 387–415.
  • Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., ve Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European industrial training, 30(9), 701-720.
  • Field A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.
  • Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 16742.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, Cengage Learning, Andover. Hampshire, United Kingdom.
  • Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., ve Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research policy, 32(9), 1555-1568.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
  • Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler, (2. Yazım, 32. Bsm). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koyuncu, İ., ve Kılıç, A. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizlerinin Kullanımı: Bir Doküman İncelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198).
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.
  • Mabel, O. A., ve Olayemi, O. S. (2020). A Comparison of Principal Component Analysis, Maximum Likelihood and the Principal Axis in Factor Analysis.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., ve Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models. 275–340.
  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., ve Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
  • Mudde, H., Widhiani, A. P., ve Fauzi, A. M. (2017). Entrepreneurial university transformation in Indonesia: a comprehensive assessment of IPB. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 5(1).
  • Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada Araştırma Teknikleri (Veri Toplama Araçları-Metrik ve Metrik Olmayan Analizler-Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analizler). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • OECD. (1998). Fostering Entrepreneurship: The OECD Job Strategy. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/fosteringentrepreneurship.htm, (23.12.2022).
  • Preston, C. C., ve Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., ve Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
  • Şahin, A., ve Kartal, B. (2011). Pazarlama Araştırması. İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics. . 7th Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Velicer, W. F., ve Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods, 3(2), 231.

Year 2023, 100th Anniversary Special Issue, 43 - 63, 27.12.2023

Ercan Eğin Rabia Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1235543

Abstract

Keywords

Girişimci Üniversite Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeği Geçerlik Güvenirlik

References

  • ACEEU. (2016). Standards & Guidelines Entrepreneurial University Accreditation, ACEEU, Amsterdam, https://www.aceeu.org, (22.12.2022).
  • Ahmad, S. Z., ve Xavier, S. R. (2012). Entrepreneurial environments and growth: evidence from Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
  • Aksu, G., Eser, M. T., ve Güzeller, C. O. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Al Harthy, S. H. M. (2014). The entrepreneurial university and the entrepreneurial environment: organizational analysis and policy considerations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.
  • Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA Press.
  • Ayre, C., ve Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86.
  • Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., ve Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
  • Byrne, B. M., ve Fayolle, A. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions. OECD, Paris.
  • Clark B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon, 127-148.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.
  • Crow, M. M. (2008, June). Building an entrepreneurial university. In The future of the Research University: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century, 11-30.
  • Crowley, S. L., ve Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of personality assessment, 68(3), 508-531.
  • Cudeck, R., ve MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Routledge.
  • Çetin, E. (2021). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumları ve Girişimcilik Niyetleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 153-180.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
  • EC-OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Final version, 18 December 2012. https://www.utadeo.edu.co/files/collections/documents/field_ attached_file/ec-oecd_entrepreneurial_universities_framework.pdf, (21.12.2022).
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social science information, 42(3), 293-337.
  • Etzkowitz, H., (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York.
  • Fava, J. L., ve Velicer, W. F. (1992). The Effects of Overextraction on Factor and Component Analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 27(3), 387–415.
  • Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., ve Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European industrial training, 30(9), 701-720.
  • Field A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.
  • Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 16742.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, Cengage Learning, Andover. Hampshire, United Kingdom.
  • Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., ve Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research policy, 32(9), 1555-1568.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
  • Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler, (2. Yazım, 32. Bsm). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koyuncu, İ., ve Kılıç, A. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizlerinin Kullanımı: Bir Doküman İncelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198).
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.
  • Mabel, O. A., ve Olayemi, O. S. (2020). A Comparison of Principal Component Analysis, Maximum Likelihood and the Principal Axis in Factor Analysis.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., ve Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models. 275–340.
  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., ve Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
  • Mudde, H., Widhiani, A. P., ve Fauzi, A. M. (2017). Entrepreneurial university transformation in Indonesia: a comprehensive assessment of IPB. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 5(1).
  • Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada Araştırma Teknikleri (Veri Toplama Araçları-Metrik ve Metrik Olmayan Analizler-Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analizler). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • OECD. (1998). Fostering Entrepreneurship: The OECD Job Strategy. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/fosteringentrepreneurship.htm, (23.12.2022).
  • Preston, C. C., ve Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., ve Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
  • Şahin, A., ve Kartal, B. (2011). Pazarlama Araştırması. İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics. . 7th Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Velicer, W. F., ve Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods, 3(2), 231.

Year 2023, 100th Anniversary Special Issue, 43 - 63, 27.12.2023

Ercan Eğin Rabia Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1235543

Abstract

Keywords

Girişimci Üniversite Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeği Geçerlik Güvenirlik

References

  • ACEEU. (2016). Standards & Guidelines Entrepreneurial University Accreditation, ACEEU, Amsterdam, https://www.aceeu.org, (22.12.2022).
  • Ahmad, S. Z., ve Xavier, S. R. (2012). Entrepreneurial environments and growth: evidence from Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
  • Aksu, G., Eser, M. T., ve Güzeller, C. O. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Al Harthy, S. H. M. (2014). The entrepreneurial university and the entrepreneurial environment: organizational analysis and policy considerations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.
  • Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA Press.
  • Ayre, C., ve Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86.
  • Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., ve Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
  • Byrne, B. M., ve Fayolle, A. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions. OECD, Paris.
  • Clark B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon, 127-148.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.
  • Crow, M. M. (2008, June). Building an entrepreneurial university. In The future of the Research University: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century, 11-30.
  • Crowley, S. L., ve Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of personality assessment, 68(3), 508-531.
  • Cudeck, R., ve MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Routledge.
  • Çetin, E. (2021). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumları ve Girişimcilik Niyetleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 153-180.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
  • EC-OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Final version, 18 December 2012. https://www.utadeo.edu.co/files/collections/documents/field_ attached_file/ec-oecd_entrepreneurial_universities_framework.pdf, (21.12.2022).
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social science information, 42(3), 293-337.
  • Etzkowitz, H., (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York.
  • Fava, J. L., ve Velicer, W. F. (1992). The Effects of Overextraction on Factor and Component Analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 27(3), 387–415.
  • Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., ve Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European industrial training, 30(9), 701-720.
  • Field A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.
  • Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 16742.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, Cengage Learning, Andover. Hampshire, United Kingdom.
  • Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., ve Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research policy, 32(9), 1555-1568.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
  • Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler, (2. Yazım, 32. Bsm). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koyuncu, İ., ve Kılıç, A. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizlerinin Kullanımı: Bir Doküman İncelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198).
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.
  • Mabel, O. A., ve Olayemi, O. S. (2020). A Comparison of Principal Component Analysis, Maximum Likelihood and the Principal Axis in Factor Analysis.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., ve Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models. 275–340.
  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., ve Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
  • Mudde, H., Widhiani, A. P., ve Fauzi, A. M. (2017). Entrepreneurial university transformation in Indonesia: a comprehensive assessment of IPB. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 5(1).
  • Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada Araştırma Teknikleri (Veri Toplama Araçları-Metrik ve Metrik Olmayan Analizler-Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analizler). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • OECD. (1998). Fostering Entrepreneurship: The OECD Job Strategy. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/fosteringentrepreneurship.htm, (23.12.2022).
  • Preston, C. C., ve Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., ve Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
  • Şahin, A., ve Kartal, B. (2011). Pazarlama Araştırması. İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics. . 7th Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Velicer, W. F., ve Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods, 3(2), 231.

Year 2023, 100th Anniversary Special Issue, 43 - 63, 27.12.2023

Ercan Eğin Rabia Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1235543

Abstract

Keywords

Girişimci Üniversite Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeği Geçerlik Güvenirlik

References

  • ACEEU. (2016). Standards & Guidelines Entrepreneurial University Accreditation, ACEEU, Amsterdam, https://www.aceeu.org, (22.12.2022).
  • Ahmad, S. Z., ve Xavier, S. R. (2012). Entrepreneurial environments and growth: evidence from Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
  • Aksu, G., Eser, M. T., ve Güzeller, C. O. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Al Harthy, S. H. M. (2014). The entrepreneurial university and the entrepreneurial environment: organizational analysis and policy considerations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester.
  • Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA Press.
  • Ayre, C., ve Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 79–86.
  • Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., ve Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
  • Byrne, B. M., ve Fayolle, A. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions. OECD, Paris.
  • Clark B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon, 127-148.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.
  • Crow, M. M. (2008, June). Building an entrepreneurial university. In The future of the Research University: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century, 11-30.
  • Crowley, S. L., ve Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of personality assessment, 68(3), 508-531.
  • Cudeck, R., ve MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Routledge.
  • Çetin, E. (2021). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumları ve Girişimcilik Niyetleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 153-180.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
  • EC-OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Final version, 18 December 2012. https://www.utadeo.edu.co/files/collections/documents/field_ attached_file/ec-oecd_entrepreneurial_universities_framework.pdf, (21.12.2022).
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social science information, 42(3), 293-337.
  • Etzkowitz, H., (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York.
  • Fava, J. L., ve Velicer, W. F. (1992). The Effects of Overextraction on Factor and Component Analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 27(3), 387–415.
  • Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., ve Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European industrial training, 30(9), 701-720.
  • Field A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.
  • Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 16742.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, Cengage Learning, Andover. Hampshire, United Kingdom.
  • Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., ve Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research policy, 32(9), 1555-1568.
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
  • Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler, (2. Yazım, 32. Bsm). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koyuncu, İ., ve Kılıç, A. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizlerinin Kullanımı: Bir Doküman İncelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198).
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.
  • Mabel, O. A., ve Olayemi, O. S. (2020). A Comparison of Principal Component Analysis, Maximum Likelihood and the Principal Axis in Factor Analysis.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., ve Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., ve Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models. 275–340.
  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., ve Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
  • Mudde, H., Widhiani, A. P., ve Fauzi, A. M. (2017). Entrepreneurial university transformation in Indonesia: a comprehensive assessment of IPB. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 5(1).
  • Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada Araştırma Teknikleri (Veri Toplama Araçları-Metrik ve Metrik Olmayan Analizler-Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analizler). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • OECD. (1998). Fostering Entrepreneurship: The OECD Job Strategy. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/fosteringentrepreneurship.htm, (23.12.2022).
  • Preston, C. C., ve Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., ve Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
  • Şahin, A., ve Kartal, B. (2011). Pazarlama Araştırması. İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics. . 7th Edition, Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Velicer, W. F., ve Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods, 3(2), 231.
There are 50 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Entrepreneurship
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ercan Eğin 0000-0001-5863-3351

Rabia Aktaş 0000-0002-7006-5235

Publication Date December 27, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 100th Anniversary Special Issue

Cite

APA Eğin, E., & Aktaş, R. (2023). Üniversite Girişimcilik Ortamı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Bir Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Yönetim Ve Ekonomi Dergisi43-63. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1235543
 Download Cover Image