Özet:

Today we witness many changes and developments in economic social political fields and so These developments affect all components of the society from its smallest units to the most extensive entities pushing the individuals and the society to change with its surroundings and ingredients Beycioğlu amp; Aslan 2010 These changes in society do not always cause positive outcomes but sometimes they produce negative outcomes nbsp; Gradually increasing complexity of societies changes in social roles problems in interpersonal relations loneliness competitive business environment etc may cause some adverse effects on individuals rsquo; mental health The syndrome experienced as a natural result of these negative conditions is called burnout Dönmez amp; Güven 2001 Directly associated with stress and depression Friedman 2002 burnout is also defined a state of disappointment or wearness as a result of a life style or relationship not yielding the expected results Pierucci 1985 Maslach and Leiter 2005 define burnout as a loss of energy and enthusiasm as a result of being assigned meaningless and excessive duties causing a feeling of defeat and exhaustion nbsp; Though there are different views in the literature on the definition causes and symptoms of burnout there is a consensus that burnout is experienced more among people whose professions involve a good amount of emotional demands from and helping with people and among idealist people working a lot Dönmez amp; Güven 2001 Researchers report that professionals including doctors nurses teachers and managers who experience a good deal of interpersonal relations suffer burnout more Dönmez amp; Güneş 2001 In this context principals as the legal administrators of schools whose principle incomes and outputs are human may naturally suffer burnout nbsp; Today the roles of the principals have become fairly complex As results of the socio economic political and technological transformations it has become inevitable for the principals to acquire leadership competences and know and struggle more compared to the past Gümüşeli 2001 The principals do not only deal with school staff students and parents during a school day Friedman 1995 but also they have to meet the expectations of politicians press nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] etc Federici amp; Skaalvik 2012 Previous research Gmelch ve Gates 1998; Izgar 2001a; Koch Tung Gmelch amp; Swent 1982 suggest that principals experience problems in their relations and communications with teachers students parents central and regional executives supervisors representatives of both state and private service providers while trying to meet the sometimes conflicting expectations of different stakeholders As a result of the tendency for democratization the demands for the distribution of the management and decision procedures the decrease in the sources allocated to schools increased red tape and workload and increased standards of the parents NGOs and central and regional authorities regarding the student achievement Whitaker 1996 increased the responsibilities of principals and cause them to suffer physical and emotional stress and burnout nbsp; Purpose of the research nbsp; It has been noted that many research about principal burnout in Turkey Aksu amp; Baysal 2005; Babaoğlan 2007; Babaoğlan Altun amp; Çakan 2010; Baş amp; Yıldırım 2012; Çelik 2007; Dağlı 2006; Dibekoğlu 2006; Düztaş 2008; Izgar 2001b; Koçak 2009; Özdemir 2009; Sarı 2004 have used the educator form of Maslach Burnout Inventory [MBI] nbsp;However the stress sources affecting the burnout levels of a principal and a teacher working in the same school are different from each other Studying about the different stress sources that cause burnout among principals Friedman 2002 developed a standardized burnout nbsp; scale to measure the burnout levels of principals in particular The present study aimed to adapt Friedman rsquo;s 2002 ldquo;Burnout Scale for Principals [BSP] rdquo; into Turkish by testing its validity and reliability nbsp; Method Participants nbsp; The validity and reliability studies regarding the adaptation of the scale into Turkish language and culture were done using the data obtained from 196 principals who worked in Diyarbakır province and voluntarily participated to the study during 2009 2010 school year Out of the participating principals 62 worked in schools located in city center 48 in districts and 86 in towns 122 of the participants worked in primary schools and 74 in secondary schools nbsp; Procedures nbsp; The scale was originally developed by Friedman 2002 It consists of 23 items under three factors In the first stage the linguistic adaptation of the scale was done using the method of translation to Turkish and back translation to English To this end original scale was translated into Turkish by the researchers Then the translations of the items were consulted to two lecturers working at English Language Teaching department in İnönü University asking them to check the translations independently for adequacy in source text and acceptability in the target text Turkish form was reviewed and some minor modifications were done in accordance with their evaluations Next Turkish form was examined for its adequacy to meet the characteristics of target group and equivalence in Turkish language So the three academicians from Educational Sciences department and one academician from Turkish Language Teaching departments in İnönü University Educational Faculty were requested to assess the Turkish translation of the scale from idiomatic conceptual semantic and experimental aspects Based on the expert views it was concluded that Turkish form was clear enough to be understood by Turkish principals Finally three principals working in Malatya province were asked to evaluate the instructions and items in the form for clarity of meaning Based on their views approving the clarity of instructions and items the Turkish form of the scale was finalized Data analysis nbsp; Exploratory Factor Analysis EFA and Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA were used to test the construct validity of the Burnout Scale for Principals While former analysis tries to obtain factor structures based on the correlations between variables the latter tests a hypothesis or theory established in advance regarding the correlations between variables Büyüköztürk 2010 To test the reliability of the instrument item total correlations Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients and test retest correlation coefficients were estimated nbsp; FINDINGS CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS nbsp; The EFA revealed that items were reduced under three significant factors with factor loadings ranging between ldquo; 469 rdquo; and ldquo; 835 rdquo; All items were found to explain 59 91 of the total variance first factor 23 14 ; second factor 22 20 ; third factor 14 57 The communalities for the items ranged between ldquo;0 41 rdquo; and ldquo;0 77 rdquo; The item total correlation coefficients were found ranging between ldquo;0 64 rdquo; and ldquo;0 87 rdquo; The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients were estimated ldquo;0 89 rdquo; for depersonalization ldquo;0 90 rdquo; for exhaustion and ldquo;0 76 rdquo; for personal accomplishment The reliability analysis yielded similar results with those of Friedman 2002 The temporal reliability of the scale was tested by administering the scale on 20 principals working in Malatya province twice in 13 days The test retest correlation coefficients between two administrations were found ldquo;0 78 rdquo; depersonalization factor ldquo;0 81 rdquo; for exhaustion and ldquo;0 84 rdquo; for personal accomplishment factor nbsp; The validity and reliability studies on the Turkish form of Principal Burnout Scale revealed 20 items reduced under three factors as in the original form Each item in the instrument is evaluated based on a five point Likert scale: ldquo;1 = Never rdquo; ldquo;2 = Rarely rdquo; ldquo;3 = Sometimes rdquo; ldquo;4 = Mostly rdquo; ldquo;5 = Always rdquo; Minimum and maximum possible scores are 20 and 100 The increase in the score indicates that the principle suffer much burnout Administrating the adapted form of the scale on principals working in schools with different characteristics including different school types primary secondary etc and geographical locations will contribute proofs to the validity and reliability of the scale

Anahtar Kelimeler: