Scale Development for Institutional Perception Management Components Using Spss Software

  • Emete Yağcı
  • Gülsün BaşarıEmail author
  • Ali Aktepebaşı
  • Şahin Akdağ
  • Rojda Kılınçaslan Akdağ
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1095)


The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable attitude scale in order to identify the attitudes on perception management with regard to the institutional perception management components. The scale development process was conducted with a total number of 969 participants among the students from TRNC, TR and foreign students. In the scale development phase, the existing attitude scales were reviewed and the professionals were consulted concerning the established items. The scale developed in the likert type was tested in terms of validity and reliability. As a result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis, the scale was comprised of 33 items and 6 dimensions. The scale is structured with 6 factors and the content and nature of items under factors were organised as quality image, programme, sports, general view and infrastructure, accommodation and nutrition. The Stratified Cronbach α value of the scale was generated as 0.99. This coefficient is at the acceptable level for whole scale indicating that the scale has internal consistency reliability. Consequently, this scale can be considered as valid and reliable that can be used in the identification of attitudes towards institutional perception management.


Perception Perception management Institutional Perception Management Scale 


  1. 1.
    Özer, M.A.: Perception management and internal security services as a modern management techniques. Black Sea Res. 33(33), 147–180 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Efron, R.: What is perception? In: Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966/1968, pp. 137–173. Springer, Dordrecht (1969)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johansson, L.R.M., Xiong, N.: Perception management: an emerging concept for information fusion. Inf. Fusion 4(3), 231–234 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Özdağ, Ü.: Perception management, Propaganda. Psychological warfare, The bass crypto, Ankara (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Korkmazyürek, H., Hazır, K.: Organizational Behavior. Beta, Istanbul (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karasar, N.: Scientific research method (19th bs). The Nobel prize distribution, Ankara (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, Milton Park (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.: Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6, 53–60 (2008). Articles, 2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tekin, H.: n education Measurement and evaluation. Yargı Yayınevi, Ankara (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Büyüköztürk, Ş.: Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences. Pegem Academy, Ankara (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kline, R.B.: Methodology in the social sciences (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Brien, R.M.: A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41(5), 673 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Özdamar, K.: Statistical Data Analysis by Using Software Tools. Kaan Publications, Eskisehir (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Byrne, B.M.: Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS, London (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dickey, D.: Testing the fit of our models of psychological dynamics using confirmatory methods: an introductory primer. Adv. Soc. Sci. Methodol. 4, 219–227 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Everitt, B.S.: The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Agarwal, B.: Rule making in community forestry institutions: the difference women make. Ecol. Econ. 68(8–9), 2296–2308 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bakan, I., İlker, K.E.: Perception and perception management from an institutional perspective. J. Fac. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2(1), 19–34 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Near East UniversityNicosiaTurkey

Personalised recommendations