VIIth International Eurasian Educational Research Congress, 10 - 13 September 2020, pp.212-213
Human beings are socially complex, and their body awareness, emotions and thoughts change in terms of the social contexts and the situational demands (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). In other words, body, cognitive and emotional awareness are based on self-regulatory process. Therefore, there are many therapy models such as mindfulness therapy, body awareness therapy, psychophysical therapy, and yoga therapy on the strength of self-knowledge and self-regulatory process. All of these are organized to provide mind-body connection (Price & Thompson, 2007). Hefferon (2013) indicated that the connection between body and mind is a quite attractive topic in today’s psychological field. In order to connect between body and mind, individuals must firstly be aware of their body experience. Being aware of body experience necessitates individuals to monitor and recognize the body stimulus (numbness), experience them (resolution of numbness) and accept them. These body experiences are based on holistic view to heighten to psychophysical awareness that provide well-being (Bakal, 1999; Blackburn & Price, 2007). In contrast to body awareness, body dissociation escaping internal experiences such as getting isolated from body and emotion, having difficulty in monitoring, recognizing, and describing body stimuli and experience (Price & Thompson, 2007; Price & Thompson & Cheng, 2017). Further, the body dissociation is related to defensive mechanism of trauma and trauma-related experiences (Herman, 1992, Maltz, 2012; Vander Kolk, 2014). All the studies mentioned above indicated the importance of body awareness and body dissociation. In national literature, there is no scale to measure body awareness and body dissociation (body connection), so it is vital to adapt body connection scale into Turkish. This adaptation provides researchers and clinicians to assess trauma and well-being, and conduct research about it. Considering all this, the study is to adapt the body connection scale into Turkish. The sample of the study were 440 participants (125 males, 315 females) drawn from Istanbul Medeniyet University students at Social Work Department and their relatives during the term November, 2019 The age range of the participants was between 15 to 84 with a mean age of 24.41 (SD=9.35). Snowball sampling method was conducted.The ethical permission of the study was received from Istanbul Medeniyet University. Initially, scale translation procedures were followed to translate and adapt the Body Connection Scale into Turkish. The translation of the scale was carried out through a three-step procedure; converting the items from the original language to the target language, determining the equivalence of the items in the original form and the draft form, and determining the validity and reliability of the obtained Turkish form (Hambleton & Bollwark, 1991). Confidentiality was guaranteed. The average time to complete the scales was 15 minutes.Turkish version of Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Özyeşil, Arslan, Kesici, & Deniz, 2011), Turkish version of Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale (Malkoç, Gördesli, Arslan, Cekici, Sünbül, 2019), The Scale of Body Connection (Price & Thompson, 2007) and the Turkish version of PERMA-Profiler (Demirci, Ekşi, Dinçer, & Kardaş, 2017) scales were used. Firstly data cleaning and screening steps and the normality and linearity assumptions of CFA were examined through SPSS 20 package program. Mean substitution method was performed to deal with the missing data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). In addition, univariate outliers were explored through z scores of each item. The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between the study variables were also explored through SPSS 20 package program.Both CFA indicators for the measurement model of SBC and model testing parameters for the proposed model (model fit indices and path coefficients) were found out through AMOS 18 program (Byrne, 2001). Firstly, the model fit values emerged for SBC was found to be poor (χ2/df=790.96/170, p<.001; GFI=.84; CFI=.60; TLI=.56; RMSEA=.09). Brown (2006) points out three major reasons for poor model values in CFA: low factor loadings, high error covariances between items, and the lack of indicators. Regarding these sources for a poor fit, items with factor loadings below .30 (Items: 2, 8, 9, 11,12, 16) were deleted from the scale. Items with high error variances (items 3-5, item 3 and dissociation sub-scale, items 13-14, items 14-17) were let to covariate in the measurement model. After revisions, the model fit indices emerged for SBC (χ2/df=2,25, p<.001; GFI=.95; CFI=.91; TLI=.89; RMSEA=.05), relatively satisfy the criterion ranges (Kline, 2011). Secondly the measurement invariance of SBC across genders was examined. The model were found to be satisfactory indicating a configural invariance for SBC (χ2/df=235.82/146, p<.001; GFI=.93; CFI=.91; TLI=.88; RMSEA=.04). The chi-square difference test yielded a non-significant difference of x2 (Δx2=13.1, Δdf=14, p>.05) suggesting that the measurement unit is same for items across genders for SBC (Horn & McArdle, 1992). The Cronbach Alpha coefficients were found to be .64 for both body awareness and body dissociation and .73 for the whole scale.