Organizational Values Scale: Development, Validity and Reliability Study

With globalization, the changes in societies have affected organizations and brought the “human” factor to the fore. Since educational institutions are human oriented organizations, values have become an indispensable element of schools. Therefore, it is thought that determining teachers’ perceptions of organizational values will be useful in related researches. The aim of this study is to develop a scale that allows teachers to measure their perceptions of organizational values. The study sample was composed of 49 items and 232 teachers working in secondary schools. After performing Explanatory Factor Analysis, 5 sub-scales and 43 items were obtained. The total variance of the scale was explained by 60.683 %. The total Alpha rate of the scale was found to be .946. The structure of the scale, revealed by Explanatory Factor Analysis, was confirmed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. It can be said that the scale is a valid and reliable data collection tool.


Introduction
In the competitive environment created by the rapid changes that are the product of globalization, removing the boundary in many areas, it has become compulsory for organizations to use their resource in the best way to survive. The most important part of these sources is the "human" factor (Gümüş & Sezgin, 2012: 79-82). Such a resource provides an undeniable benefit to the organizations in competitive environments within the framework of today's understanding (Aycan, Kanungo & Mendonça, 2016: 87). In addition, it is important to adopt manpower in the organization in achieving success (Güney, 2015: 280-281). Because as long as people continue to work together, organizations continue their existence (Mcshane & Glinow, 2016: 5). The survival of organizations and individuals is achieved by values (Kılıç, 2010: 86). Values enable individuals in organizations to work together in a relaxed and peaceful manner (Mcshane & Glinow, 2016: 36). tradition, benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism and achievement (Schwartz, 1994: 22). This theory of values shaped to define active relationships between the mentioned value groups (Kuşdil & Kağıtçıbaşı, 2000: 62). Hofstede (2001) divided the values into five groups: Masculinity-Femininity, Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance, Short Term-Long Term Orientation and Uncertainty Avoidance. In this study, as the research is carried out on the basis of Hofstede's (2001) cultural value dimensions, the explanations for each dimension in the classification are given below: a) Masculinity-Femininity is concerned with the distinction of emotional roles between women and men (Hofstede, 2001: 29). If values such as ambition, freedom, power, aggression and domination are dominant in an organization, a division of labor has been made according to masculine values in these organizations (Şişman, 2011: 60). Masculinity values emphasize being ambitious, money and materialism rather than the quality of life and the needs of others. Life is seen as a competition; individuals try to be superior by using force if necessary, it is important to be best and fastest (Hofstede, Pederson and Hofstede, 2002: 116).
Organizations where femininity values are dominant do not have high levels of work stress (Güney, 2015: 201). Human relationships are more important in these organizations than competition (Mschane & Glinow, 2016: 42). b) Individualism-Collectivism is related to the integration of individuals in organizations (Hofstede, 2001: 29). In the organizations where the individualism is at the forefront, employees are more autonomous (Sarı, 2017: 252) and personal interests are prioritized (Şişman, 2011: 61). In collectivism people act as part of their organization (Robbins and Judge, 2017: 153). Collectivism is the value dimension in which people have strong commitment to their organizations and have loyalty to their organizations without questioning (Kağıtçıbaşı and Cemalcılar, 2015: 322). c) Power Distance is related to different solutions to human inequality in organizations (Hofstede, 2001: 29). Robbins and Judge (2017) reported the power distance as a way of perceiving that the force distributed in organizations and communities are not equal. In organizations with low power distances, managers and employees communicate with each other more easily. When managers make decisions they get opinions of the employees.
Employees behave in a way that focuses on human values (Güney, 2015: 199). Employees obey authority in organizations where the distance of power high (Mcshane & Glinow, 2016: 41, 42).

d) Short Term-Long Term
Orientation is related to people's focus on the future or the present (Hofstede, 2001: 29). In short term oriented organizations, traditions are unquestionably important. A lot of time is spent on social rituals. It is very important to live the moment and get fast results. In long term oriented organizations individuals work extremely hard, it is important to be profitable, not to be happy (Hofstede, Pederson & Hofstede, 2002: 156, 158). e) Uncertainty Avoidance is related to the level of stress of society when faced with an unknown situation (Hofstede, 2001: 29). In organizations where the level of uncertainty avoidance is low, anxiety and stress levels are low. These organizations are open to innovations and changes. Individuals do not avoid breaking the rules when they need them (Doğan, 2013: 27). In organizations where the level of uncertainty avoidance is high, the working environment is formal. The rules are clear and decisions are documented in writing.
Communication in these organizations is clear (Mschane & Glinow, 2016: 42). People worry about uncertain behaviors and use rules and control system to reduce this uncertainty (Robbins & Judge, 2017: 153).
Organizational values, which are effective in ensuring the continuity of societies and organizations, also play an important role in schools, work together and communicate effectively together is achieved through organizational values in schools (Ulusoy & Dilmaç, 2016: 57). Teachers' strong communication with their colleagues is one of the factors that are effective in the success of teachers (Taşdan & Erdem, 2010: 94). Therefore, it is thought that the negative perceptions of teachers towards organizational values reduce teachers' performance. In order to solve this problem, teachers need to be aware of their own perceptions of organizational values. The aim of this study is to develop a scale to develop a scale to determine teachers' perceptions of organizational values that have become important in educational life as well as in organizational life today. For this purpose, a five-point Likert-type "Organizational Values Scale" was developed to determine teachers' perceptions of organizational values. Many measurement tools have been developed to measure organizational values (Battal, 2007;Yoo, Dontho & Lenartowicz, 2011;Devaney, 2012;Vvinhardt & Guldovaite, 2017). However, few studies have been done to test the factor structures of the scale (Hofstede, 2001) mentioned in the literature (Battal, 2007). In this context, it is aimed to raise awareness of these dimensions. Therefore, it is thought that the scale of organizational values will contribute to the literature. The results of the research are expected to contribute to training of teachers and their professional development.

Method
This research was carried out to determine validity and reliability study of the scale.

Study Group
In  (Hofstede, 2001;Battal, 2007;Yoo, Dontho & Lenatowicz, 2011;Devaney, 2012;Vvinhardt & Guldovaite, 2017). As a result of the review, an item pool containing 100 items were created. The number of items in the item pool was reduced to 80 by removing similar and repeating expressions in these items. Before the pre-application of the scale, 6 language specialists, working in the school where the researcher worked, were consulted to determine the comprehensiveness and the suitability of grammar in the scale. In addition, 6 experts from the field of educational science have been consulted to examine the face validity and content validity of the scale. Based on expert opinions, 31 items were deleted from 80-item pool and 49 items were included in the scale before application. A 5-point Likert-type rating was selected for the level of participation of the item pool and rated as "Strongly agree" (5), "Agree" (4), "Undecided" (3), "Disagree" (2) and "Strongly disagree" (1). After these processes, validity and reliability studies were started.

Research Process
In order to determine to what extent the items in the scale measure the properties to be measured, construct validity and reliability studies have been carried out. The construct validity of the scale was first examined with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was applied to verify this construction. In order to determine the validity and reliability level of the scale, the scale was pre-applied to 240 teachers, who were selected objectively, before the sample group and 232 of the scales were evaluated. 8 of these scales have been excluded from the study because demographic information is not filled out or a single participation degree marked. Therefore, a total of 232 teachers' data were processed. Firstly, EFA and CFA were done over the same data set. In addition, the relationship between the factors that make up the scale was also examined SPSS and AMOS programs are used for EFA and correlation.

Findings
In this section, the validity and reliability studies of the organizational values are included.

Findings for Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out with 49 items in the organizational values scale. The adequacy of the sample was examined using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value in EFA and the suitability of data for factor analysis using Barlett's test of Sphericity.
KMO value was found to be .915 and Barlett test revealed a statistically significant difference (χ 2 = 5835.809, p= .000). After the analysis studies, six items (9, 13, 29, 31, 42 and 46) with load values below .30 and loading difference less than .10 have been deleted. In addition, three items in the final version of the scale (19, 20, and 21) were taken as reversed items to the scale. As a result of these values, it was concluded that EFA can be performed with the data. 43 items of the scale were taken into principal component analysis with five factors and varimax (25) rotation was performed. As a result of EFA, the scale was formed in 43 items and five-factor structure. The scree-plot graph for the scale also provides evidence for the five-factor structure of the scale. The scree-plot graph of the scale is included in figure 1.

Journal of Computer and Education Research
Year 2020  The first factor of the scale was named as "Masculinity-Femininity", the second factor as "Individualism-Collectivism", the third factor as "Power Distance", the fourth factor "Short Term-Long Term Orientation" and the fifth factor as "Uncertainty Avoidance". The first factor of the scale was "Masculinity-Femininity", which explained 11.48 % of the variance and consisted of 8 items. Its item total correlations varied between .855 and .503.
The second factor of the scale was "Individualism-Collectivism", which explained 13.98 % of the variance and consisted of 10 items. Its item total correlations varied between .851 and .447. The third factor of the scale was "Power Distance", which explained 13.24 % of the variance and consisted of 8 items. Its item total correlations varied between .865 and .711.
The fourth factor of the scale was "Short Term-Long Term Orientation", which explained 10.45 % of the variance and consisted of 9 items. Its item total correlations varied between .839 and .484. The fifth and the final factor of the scale was "Uncertainty Avoidance", which explained 10.50 % of the variance and consisted of 8 items. Its item total correlations varied between .852 and .629. The total variance explained by these items on the scale adequately explained the quality measured. As a result, the scale was obtained in a five-factor structure with 43 items.

Findings for Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is testing to verify the relationship between previously determined items (Büyüköztürk, 2017: 134;Ünal, 2014: 25). In CFA, a state diagram is used to determine variables that are thought to be associated with factors of the scale. Through this state diagram, relations between factors and variables are determined (Schumacker and Lomax 1996; cited by Çokluk, Şekercioğlu and Büyüköztürk, 2016: 260).
CFA measured the latent factors in the structure of the scale and their mutually dependent effects among these factors. As a result of analysis, it indicates the one-way linear relationship. This shows how well each item of the scale represents latent variables (Huck, 2012: 518). The compliance criteria in Figure 2 shows that the level of compliance of the five factor modal obtained from CFA is acceptable and adequate.  .077; GFI: .860; CFI was found as .960. When the findings were examined chi squared (χ 2 ) value was found as 1585,591 and df (sd) value was found as 83. When we compare these values, the ratio of χ 2 /sd is 1, 90 (1585, 591/833: 1, 90). The ratio of χ 2 /sd<3 means that the fit of the model is perfect (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu & Büyüköztürk, 2016: 315). These findings show that the scale's fit index value is at the desired level and the scale provides the required construct validity (Huck, 2012: 498).

Reliability Findings
For 43 items of the organizational values scale, Cronbach Alpha coefficient was found to be .946 and items' factor load values varied between .449 and .865. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient of "Masculinity-Femininity" factor was .826; "Individualism-Collectivism" factor was .872; "Power Distance" factor was .824; "Short Term-Long Term Orientation" factor was .872 and "Uncertainty Avoidance" factor was .828. Since the Cronbach Alpha coefficient obtained from scale analysis is over .70, the scale has adequate reliability (Büyüköztürk, 2017: 183). perceptions of organizational values affect their performance (Kuşdil & Kağıtçıbaşı, 2000;Sezgin, 2006). In addition, in Polat's (2012) statement, school administrators need to analyze and strengthen the organizational values of teachers in order to guide teachers' behavior.

Discussion and Conclusions
In this study, a valid and reliable scale was developed to measure teachers' It is important to mention some limitations of this study. Participants were selected from secondary schools in Diyarbakır. For the generalization of the research findings, the scale can also be applied in different provinces and schools with different educational levels.
In addition, the scale can be examined in different demographic variables in secondary schools across the country and the results of the research can be compared.

Acknowledgement
The data used in this study was confirmed by the researchers that it belongs to the years before 2020.