Bu RoMEO yeşil bir dergidir
2016, Cilt 6, Sayı 3, Sayfa(lar) 384-395
[ Öz ] [ PDF ] [ Benzer Makaleler ] [ Yazara E-Posta ] [ Editöre E-Posta ]
DOI: 10.5961/jhes.2016.175
Scale of Accountability in Higher Education Institutions: A Study of Validity and Reliability
Didem DOĞAN1, Ahmet AYPAY2
1Aksaray University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Aksaray, Turkey
2Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir, Turkey
Keywords: Accountability, Higher education, Scale development, Explanatory factor analysis, Confirmatory factor analysis
Despite being generally perceived as a phenomenon restricting freedoms, an ideal accountability behaviour is, actually, an important factor for the improvement of an organization. The aim of this study was to develop a scale that measures accountability in higher education institutions. For the generation of the scale items, the relevant literature was examined in detail both from national and international sources. The views of the academics (N=11) on accountability in higher education institutions were acquired, as well. The scale, whose content and language validity checks were performed, was applied to 200 academics, who worked at Turkish higher education institutions and were chosen through random sampling. As a result of the explanatory factor analysis, which was conducted to explore construct validity, 7 dimensions of the scale were identified. The confirmatory factor analysis which was conducted to check the accuracy of the identified structure showed that the model fit perfectly with that structure (χ2/df=1, 2; RMESA=0.04; NNFI=.95; CFI=.95). The internal consistency of the scale as measured by Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated as .94. Based on the findings, it can be said that a valid and reliable measurement instrument that measures accountability in higher education institutions was developed.
  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Introduction
    Accountability, one of the essential elements of a successful management, is currently accepted as an important principle to ensure the transparency in public enterprises. The concept of accountability in education was more frequently discussed after 1970’s, it started to developed as a Standard based movement of accountability in 1980’s; in 1994 with the law “The Improving America’s Schools Act – IASA” the accountability system at the level of province was started to be discussed. Lately (2001) with the law of “No Child Left Behind” a more permanent accountability system was provided and a specific frame was presented to provinces to develop their own accountability systems. (Perie, Park & Klau, 2007).

    Higher Education Institutions have a great impact on social, cultural and economic development of a region or a government. The common aim of these institutions is to develop human understanding. From this perspective, higher education serves as an intellectual and cultural source. With being on the agenda of the problem of quality in higher education institutions, the concept of accountability has become quite important. Public accountability has become an important principle especially in the universities abroad. Accountability generally became a topic for discussions in higher education institutions in Turkey but an applicable accountability system was not formed.

    The growing demand for higher education led to a rapid increase in the number of universities in Turkey and this case brought up the problem of quality in higher education institutions. It is very important that the universities developing in terms of quantity should also develop in terms of quality and being close with public. This understanding made the concept of accountability a current issue in higher education institutions. Bologna process, which is going on to ensure the accountability and standardization in higher education institutions, is a very great step in this issue. The aim of this process, which 41 countries have attended, is bring the higher education systems of the countries to the transparent, understandable and competitive level. (Higher Education Council 2010).

    When the national and international literature are studied, it could not be encountered with an scale whose validity and reliability are proven. In Some universities in developed countries, some types of forms have been used to prove the accountability of their own universities. The reason of this can be considered that the perceptions on accountability have changed and it is perceived as a concept closely related to culture of societies. While developing the accountability system, cultural and social elements should be taken into consideration (Lingenfelter, 2003: 21). It is not possible obtain statistic values determining the accountability level of these institutions, since there is no accountability scale in the higher education institutions in Turkey. A scale which measures accountability in higher education institutions will compensate this missing.

    In this article, the concept of accountability has been analyzed, and the content and the subdimensions of accountability have been presented. For this, it is primarily necessary to analyze the concept of accountability and understand the content and subdimensions of accountability correctly. When the literature is studied, it is possible to encounter so many concepts about accountability. However, the concept of accountability becomes more specific, when it is studied in terms of higher education institutions. In the study, the classification about accountability in higher education institutions were carried by taking into consideration of higher education institutions and conditions in Turkey. For this reason, related literature was studied in a detailed manner and interviews were arranged with academicians in Turkey.

    Definition of Accountability
    Lexical meaning of the concept of accountability is: the quality or state of being accountable, and obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions (Merriam- Webster’s Dictionary of English usage, 1994). Evans (2008: 10) stated that accountability concept is misunderstood as if it had been a negative sanction for something going wrong. While accountability is perceived as a concept consisting only financial and highly important political activities in advance, current social changes have led to some conceptual shifts in the responsibility of accountability. Responsibility of accountability is no longer a phenomenon which is limited with time and place, and it has become a social and political concept thanks to developing media and growing public. From the point of public administration, as an important element in modern administration accountability can be defined as all administration, principles, supervision which are applied to guarantee that politicians should use sate resources and authority for the benefit of public (Behn, 2003: 11-12; Mulgan, 2002: 45).

    The content of accountability concept
    Accountability issue is a very complex and exhaustive concept (Aypay, 2015; Kearns, 1994: 141; Wagner, 1989: 7). When related literature is studied, accountability in higher education institutions can be evaluated as basic subdimensions such as academic accountability, administrative accountability, financial accountability, transparency, responsibility, responsiveness and explanation (Vidovich & Slee, 2001; Goetz & Jenkins, 2001; Lingenfelter, 2001; Mulgan, 2002; Evans, 2002; Leveille, 2006; Middaugh, 2007)

    Academic accountability
    Accountability in higher education institutions should not only deal with financial accountability and it should also involve academic accountability which includes the activities of faculty members such as making surveys, publishing the surveys, carrying out educational activities and servicing for public. Academicians who should have academic freedom should account for in terms of academic. Cahn (1983) stressed that academic freedom does not mean that they are out of control and throw off the responsibility of accountability. In addition to financial accountability, rectors, deans, high school managers and department heads in higher education institutions are able to account for academic performance of their departments (akt. Gedikoğlu, 2013).

    Administrative accountability
    Administrative accountability reminds the hierarchical structure of the organization in reality. Vidovich ve Slee (2001) divide accountability into four categories; upward, downward, inward and outward. These accountability types also make possible to communicate between administrators and superiors.

    Upward accountability represents the conventional relation between subordinate and superior. Upward accountability involves procedural, bureaucratic, legal and vertical accountability.

    Downward accountability is that an administrator in higher education includes his subordinate to decision process.
    Inward accountability moves activities of superiors on occupational and ethical standards to the center. Accountability in universities and high schools is located in this class.

    Outward accountability means that higher education institution are responsible for their customers, shareholders, supporters and public. Market and politic accountability are located in this class.

    Responsibility of accountability in higher education institutions refer to accountability related that academicians and administrators carry out their occupational responsibilities. Accountability phenomenon lay responsibilities below for administrators (Burke, 2005):

    • Managers should show that they use their power in right way.
    • Managers should prove that they have responsibilities and effort to realize the objectives of their institutions
    • Managers should report the performance of the institutions to public.
    • Managers should evaluate the sources in terms of productivity and efficiency
    • Managers should ensure the quality of the services that they presented to public and the programs that they applied.
    • They should prove that they serve for public.

    Responsibility means individual preference and activities oriented authority without one’s reference. While accountability is for the others, responsibility is for one’s own (Mulgan, 2003).

    Financial accountability
    Financial accountability is an obligation to present an exhaustive and honest report by persons who use public funding about planned and materialized usages. Financial accountability involves some financial systems for internal and external controlling and expense controlling of public institutions. Higher education institutions are high cost educational level and it is also an educational field where highly educated persons, qualified man power and experts and professionals are employed.

    Therefore, it is necessary for these intuitions to have expensive infrastructure in addition to expensive machinery and equipment (Gedikoğlu, 2013). It is actually inescapable from accounting for public because of such an over coasting structure. Since higher education institutions have responsibility to account for government and public, they should use funds effectively and affordably and cooperate with shareholders. However, this is not an easy process. With the increasing demand for higher education recently, it is really hard to increase productivity while decreasing the cost. In this situation, deactivation accountability mechanism makes it complicated. Because an accountability system is an important tool for productivity and developing of the organization (Leveille, 2006).

    Transparency concept related to accountability concept is essentially whether every individual can reach accurate information. When accountability is studied in terms of transparency, it can be said that both concepts are related and complement each other (Eryılmaz & Biricikoğlu, 2011). Transparency frequently used with accountability concept involves the processes publishing and sharing the information about standard processes and regulations about working institutions by using an understandable language (OECD, 2002). Transparency is to share information about institution with shareholders in time, accurately and in an understandable way (Gedikoğlu, 2013). Providing accountability in higher education institutions depends on the creation of transparent policies in these institutions.

    Responsiveness is used to mean willingness of subordinates to meet the demand of superiors (Mulgan, 2003). Responsiveness which supports accountability involves that services standards in higher education initiations should be created sufficiently. In this context, higher education institution should have mechanisms answering demands and complaints of public to ensure accountability. On the other hand, responsiveness of higher education institutions is very important to strengthen the connection between public and these institutions.

    Explanation of higher education institutions for their activities to public is a reflection of social accountability which a kind of accountability emerging recently. Social accountability is very important recently. Developing information and communication technology enables that public more questions public institutions (Eryılmaz & Biricikoğlu, 2011). Accountability in higher education institutions should be for both persons working in institutions and public. Higher education institutions which are defined as semi- public institutions account for students, parents, industry and business world, professional organizations and public. Therefore, releasing to the public more concrete performance indicators like the number of students and personnel is very important for an ideal accountability for higher education institutions.

    A successful accountability system is all purpose and multidimensional (Lingenfelter, 2001). This accountability responsibility should not only be in national level but also in international level (Stensaker & Harvey, 2011).

    How can accountability system be created in higher education institutions?
    Critical suggestions are presented in this literature field to create and make applicable an effective and functional accountability system which is going to solve most of the problems in higher education institutions (Behn, 2003; Burke, 2005; Bowen, 1974; Doğramacı, 2007; Leveille, 2006; Vidovich & Slee, 2001).

    • Accountability is a must to get better results in higher education institutions, but applied accountability types generally is not going to be useful to enhance the performance. Therefore, there need for new approaches providing better results in accountability in higher education institutions.

    • We may describe most of the applied accountability systems as complex, ineffective, rough, exaggerated. The systems, formed by reports prepared by using data which are misleading, hyperpolitical, and unsuccessful to answer the key questions never create effective results.

    • There is need for an accountability mechanism which focuses on the priorities of the government and nation and compels both academicians and legislators to take responsibilities for their success.

    • There is need for accountability which presents valid and reliable information to monitor objectives, results and problems, and prompts creativity, sources and will to enhance the performance.

    • A functional accountability system should provide confidence rather than fear and motivate to reach higher objectives rather than adapting minimum regulatory principles.

    • Accountability system should not be a tool to differentiate the problems and to postpone the solution of the problem. Then we cannot take risk to have lower expectations and standards in our higher education institutions.

    • While a functional accountability mechanism in higher education institutions are respecting legal limits between educational managers and politicians and government and institutions, it should also be determined to enhance the performance.

    • Accountability system should be appropriate for the competitive end different structure of the higher education institutions. This system should create new situations for perfectness in terms of the distinctive mission for all higher education institutions.

    • Accountability system in higher education institutions; should give more importance to success in student learning and high quality in researches.

    • An effective accountability system in higher education institutions should reduce the superficial comparisons and gradation which increase unnecessary costs, compel some institutions to decrease academic standards and exclude the students who need more time and help to be successful.

    • Accountability system in higher education should provide answers for shareholders, students, related citizens and legislators on the logical issues such as student learning, graduate rates, students’ needs and costs.

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Methods
    In this study, which is a kind of quantitive survey study, threedifferent participant groups were used. The detailed informationis indicated below. the content validity study of the scalewas carried out by 5 academicians; two of them have administrativefunction in higher education institutions and threeof them are experts in educational administration. The studyof language validity which determines the appropriatenessbetween the accountability scale in higher education institutionsand Turkish grammar structure was carried out by twoinstructors who are experts in the field of Turkish Languageand Literature. The study of structure validity and reliabilityof scale; were carried out on the academicians working in thestate universities. In the sampling of this study, there are 200academicians working at 30 different state universities in 2015and then were chosen through random sampling. The age andseniority characteristics of the academicians participating thestudy are indicated at Table 1.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 1: Demographical Characteristics of the AcademiciansParticipating the Research

    The sufficiency of the sampling group was determined throughKaiser- Meyer- Olkin (KMO) test and the test result is KMO=.91.This value is higher than .90, and this indicate that he extent ofsampling is perfect Şencan, 2005). According to Kline (1994) forenough sampling extent., sampling number should be doubleamount of the number of items in the scale. According toÇokluk and colleagues (2010) when the assumptions on samplingextent are taken into consideration, extent of sampling is enough if it corresponds at least two criteria existing in literature.When all these information is taken into consideration, itcan be said that the sampling extent of this research is enoughto develop the accountability scale in higher education institutions.

    Constitution of Item Pool
    Various activities should be carried out for a functionalaccountability mechanism in higher education institutions.Since the accountability mechanisms may change from countryto country even from region to region, while the item pool wasconstituted, the interviews were arranged with the academicianswho work at in higher education institutions in Turkeyand have different titles and experiences. The data obtainedfrom interviews were studied with content analysis and findingswere used to constitute the item pool. Besides, nationaland international literature related to this subjects werestudied in a detailed manner and the accountability policy indeveloped countries and accountability behaviors at successfuluniversities were searched.

    Language Validity Test
    After scanning the related literature in a detailed manner, 70items related to accountability were written down to constitutean item pool. Language validity studies of the items werecarried out by two instructors who are expert in the field of Turkish language and literature. Table 2 shows a part of formused to provide Turkish language validity of draft scale.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 2: Language and Meaning Validity Fidelity Form of Accountability Scale in Higher Education Institutions

    After proofreading by the experts, interviews were arrangedwith a vice dean and a faculty member who is an expert inthe field of educational administration to evaluate each itemseparately to test content validity of survey. During interviews,8 items which is evaluated as appropriate were deleted fromapplicant scale.

    Content Validity Test
    An application whose one part is presented below was carriedout to test content validity of the scale by 3 persons; one ofthem is a vice dean who has also an administrative duty at theuniversity and the other two are the experts in the field of educationaladministration. The items graded lower than 7 by theexperts were deleted from scale since they are accepted as inappropriate. For this reason, the number of items deleted fromscale is 8. after this process, by calculating Lawshe contentfactor, the number of items reduced from 65 to 57. In Table 3shows a part of the form given to the experts to test contentvalidity.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 3: Content Validity Fidelity Form of Accountability Scale in Higher Education Institutions

    Lawshe Contet Velidity rates were calculated to test the contentvalidity of scale. The grades obtained from experts’ judgementswere calculated with Lawshe’s (1975) formule.

    Lawshe contents factors of the research were calculated andeight items whose content factor rate is lower than .99 weredeleted from draft scale. The content rates of the other 57items are calculated as one. According to Lawshe the contentfactor should be at least , 99 in a research accompanied by fiveexperts. Therefore, it can be said that it is appropriate for theremaining items to be in the scale.

    The structure validity and reliability analyses of scale itemsare the other steps of the study and these steps were appliedto 200 academicians working at state universities determinedthrough random sampling. The scale applicant whose contentvalidity was completed in five point Likert scale extending from“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

    Data Collection
    Testing form composed to collect data is gathered on the internetwith a link which has an explanatory information. A link onwhich there is an accountability scale in higher education institutionswas sent to the academicians working in higher educationinstitutions. The number of academicians who answeredthe scale on the link is 200.

    Data Analysis
    The validity and reliability studies of the scale were appliedto the data obtained from 200 academicians who filled theaccountability scale higher education institutions. principalcomponent analysis (exploratory factor analysis- EFA) was carriedout through varimax rotation method to test the structuralvalidity of accountability scale in higher education institutions.Factor loading in analysis determines as .30 and then confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA) was carried out to test the accuracyof the exploratory factor analysis. In the research, confirmatoryfactor analysis was carried out by using LISREL packet program.The reliability of the scale was identified by calculating CronbachAlpha internal contingency ratio.

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Results
    In this section, there are findings related to the validity and reliability of accountability scale in higher education institutions.
    Findings of Validity
    Before factor analysis which was carried out to reveal the factor loading and determine the structural validity of the scale, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) ratio (.91) and Barlett Sphericity p=0.000) test were applied to determine the appropriateness of the data obtained from scale. According to findings, these tests came to the opinion that sampling number is appropriate for making factor analysis.

    It was seen that the core values of scale were gathered in 10 factors higher than 1 and variance ratio was explained as 73 % as consequence of first EFA carried out to determine the structural validity of the scale. Afterwards one of the items which did not belong to any factors and had a relation over .85 with each other was deleted from scale and EFA was made again. A structure with 8 factors was obtained because of repeated EFA and it is determined that one factor is composed by only one item. This item also was deleted from the scale. 18 items were deleted from scale as consequence of repeated processes. After deleting the items, a 7-factored structure consisting of 39 items was obtained as consequence of repeated EFA. Factor loading of items are appropriate and factors explain the 62%of the total variance. Table 4 shows factor loading of 39 items in the scale.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 4: Factor Loading of Scale Items Obtained as Consequence of Exploratory Factor Analysis

    Table 4 shows factor loading belonged to exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and significance values (t) of expected factor loading in confirmatory factor analysis. When t values in the table were analyzed, it was understood that factor load belonged to the items were statistically significant. When Table 2 was analyzed, it is understood that factor loading of the first dimension consisting eight items varied between .57 and .79. factor loading of the second dimension consisting of eight items vary between .46 and .69. Factor loading of the third dimension consisting four items vary between .52 and .78. Factor loading of the fifth dimension consisting of five items vary between .43 and .80. factor loading of the sixth dimension consisting of six items vary between .42 and .70 and factor loading of the seventh dimension consisting of three items vary between .65 and .72. Table 5 shows the explanation variance rate of factors of scale obtained from exploratory factor analysis.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 5: Variance Results Obtained from Exploratory Factor Analysis

    According to Table 5, factors belonged to the scale explain 62.86 % of total variance as consequence of exploratory factor analysis. This factor explains 13.16% of total variance. This dimension is called as financial since this factor is consisted of the items reflecting the financial dimension of accountability in higher education institutions. The second factor explains 10.79% of total variance. This dimension is called as transparency since this factor is consisted of the items reflecting the transparency in higher education institutions. The third factor explains 8.96% of total variance. This dimension is called as responsibility since this factor is consisted of the items expressing the responsibility of accountability of higher education institutions. The fourth factor explains 8.34% of total variance. This factor is called as responsiveness since the items in this factor are related responsiveness of higher education institution for public demands and requests. The fifth factor explains 8.30% of total variance. This factor is called as administrative accountability since the items belonged to this factor are related to administrative accountability of the institution. The sixth factor explains 7.67% of total variance. This factor is called as academic accountability since this factor is consisted of the items reflecting the academic accountability in higher education institutions. The seventh factor explains 5.61% of total variance. This dimension called as explanation since this factor is consisted of the items related to the concept of accountability for explanation for public in higher education institutions. In the analyses done with the same research group, the relation among the sub dimensions of the scale was studied and the correlation among the factors are indicated ate Table 6.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 6: Correlation Ratio among Factors

    When Table 6 is analyzed, it is understood that all the factors have significant relation (p<.001) with each other.

    Before giving the findings related to confirmatory factor analysis which was carried out to confirm the structural validity of scale, a short information about fit indices used in confirmatory factor analysis is presented in Table 7 (akt. Çokluk et al., 2010).

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 7: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Indice

    Table 8 shows findings obtained from confirmatory factor analysis. Table 8 shows that x-square value for fit indices scale related confirmatory factor analysis and statistical significance level [χ2=788, 31 df= 640]. Depending on degree of freedom, low x square value (χ2) proves that suggested model is appropriate for collected data. Fit ındices (χ2/df=1, 2; RMESA=0.04; NNFI=.95; CFI=.95) obtained from confirmatory factor analysis belonged to accountability model in higher education institutions reveal that suggested model for scale has shown a perfect fit.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 8: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results related to Accountability Scale in Higher Education Institutions

    As understood also from Table 8, the accountability superstructure in higher education which is formed by the factors called academic accountability, transparency, responsibility, administrative accountability, responsiveness and financial accountability is confirmed a consequence of analysis. Fit indices of the model are on the perfect level.

    Findings of Reliability
    Cronbach Alpha ratio of 39 items and of each item were calculated to test reliability of scale. Table 8 indicates internal consistency ratio of items in scale. According to Table 9, internal consistency ratio of the 39 items in scale. The internal consistency ratio belonged to dimensions is as below. Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to financial accountability dimension is .89, Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to transparency dimension is .85, Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to responsibility dimension is .90, Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to responsiveness dimension is .85, Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to administrative accountability dimension is .85, Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to academic accountability dimension is .77, Cronbach Alpha ratio belonged to explanation dimension is .70.

    Click Here to Zoom
    Table 9: The Number of Items of Sub-dimensions of Accountability in Higher Education Institutions and Cronbach Alpha Internal Consistency Ratio

    According to the analyses carried out to test reliability of scale, Cronbach Alpha reliability ratio of scale and scale dimensions reveal that scale is quite reliable

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Discussion
    Although the concept of accountability in higher education institutions is perceived as financial accountability, it is more than this in reality. In fact, the institutions which give account for should be dealt with a multi-dimensional approach (Lingen-felter, 2001). When the successful universities in developed countries are studied, it is seen that these universities have a distinctive accountability mechanisms.

    According to exploratory factor analysis carried out to determine the structural validity of accountability scale in higher education institutions, the structure consisting 7 sub dimensions and having 62% explained variance rate is obtained in the study. It is an acceptable criterion for multi-dimensional scales that explained variance rate of the structure is higher than 30% (Büyüköztürk, 2005). According to findings, variance rate explained by accountability scale in higher education institutions can be described as quite high. Therefore, the accountability scale in higher education institutions is able to measure the accountability in these institutions quite well.

    Confirmatory factor analysis results carried out to determine the accuracy of the estimated model (the model was presented at appendix 1.) revealed that the estimated model had a perfect fit (χ2/df=1, 2; RMESA=0.04; NNFI=.95; CFI=.95). The evidence of perfect fix is that rate of low x-square to degree of freedom is lower than 2 (Kline, 1994). The other fit indices obtained from confirmatory factor analysis also support the perfect fit (Brown, 2006: 84; Çokluk et al., 2010: 272).

    Cronbach Alpha reliability ratio of sub dimensions of the scale which was analyzed through internal consistency method vary between .73 and .89. Cronbach alpha reliability ratio of all items in scale is .84. One of the important indicators which shows that the scale is reliable is 70 or higher reliability rate (Cronbach, 1951: 302). Findings obtained from reliability analyses have shown that the scale is quite reliable.

    According to all findings obtained from the study of validity and reliability of The Accountability Scale in Higher Education Institutions, this scale can be used as valid and reliable to evaluate the accountability in higher education institutions.

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • References
  • References

    1) Aypay, A. (2015). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim alanı, kapsamı ve politikaları. Ankara: Pegem.

    2) Behn, R. D. (2003). Demokratik hesap verme sorumluluğu. (çev. Köprülü K. ). İstanbul: Arı Hareketi.

    3) Biricikoğlu, S., & Gülener, H. (2008). Hesap verebilirlik anlayışındaki değişim ve Türk kamu yönetimi. Türk İdare Dergisi, (459), 203- 224.

    4) Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guildford Publications.

    5) Bowen, H. R. (1974). Evaluating institutions for accountability. New directions for institutional research no. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    6) Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In Burke J. C. (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education (pp 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John-Wiley & Sons.

    7) Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (5. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A.

    8) Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

    9) Çokluk, Ö. Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LİSREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem.

    10) Doğramacı İ. (2007). Türkiye’de ve Dünya’da yükseköğretim yönetimi. Ankara: Meteksan.

    11) Eryılmaz, B., & Biricikoğlu H. (2011) Kamu yönetiminde hesap verebilirlik ve etik. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 4(7), 19-45

    12) Evans, G. R. (2002). Akademisyenler ve gerçek Dünya. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi.

    13) Evans, H. J. (2008). What is accountability, really? Winning with accountability the secret language of high-performing organizations. USA: Cornerstone Leadership Institute.

    14) Gedikoğlu, T. (2013). Yükseköğretimde hesap verebilirlik. Gaziantep Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 2(3), 142-150.

    15) Goetz, A. M., & R. Jenkins (2001). Hybrid forms of accountability: Citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, 3(3).

    16) Hooper D., Coughlan J., & Mullen M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60 Retrieved from http:// arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=busch manart

    17) Kearns K. P. (1994). The stratejik management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185-192. Retrieved from http:// www.chsalliance.org/files/files/Resources/Articles-and- Research/The-strategic-management-of-accountability-innonprofit- organizations-an-analytical-framework.pdf

    18) Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

    19) Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A qualitative aproach to content validity. Personel Psychology, 28, 563-575.

    20) Leveille D. (2006). Accountability in higher education: a public agenda for trust and cultural change. Berkeley: University of California.

    21) Lingenfelter, P. E. (2001). Focus on educational accountability. SHEEO Network News, 20(3), 1-7.

    22) Lingenfelter, P. E. (2003). Educational Accountability, Setting Standards, Improving Performance. Change, 35(2), 21-23.

    23) Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English usage (1994). USA: Merriam Webster

    24) Middaugh, M. F. (2007). Creating a culture of evidence: Academic accountability at the institutional level. New Directions For Higher Education, (140), 15-28.

    25) Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78, 555-573

    26) Mulgan, R. (2002). Public accountability of provider agencies: the case of the Australian ‘centrelink. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 45-59

    27) Mulgan, R. (2003). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan

    28) Perie, M., Park, J., & Klau, K. (2007). Key elements for educational accountability models. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers

    29) Romzek, B. S. (2000) Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66, 19-42.

    30) OECD (2002), Regulatory reform in the UK: Government capacity to assure high quality regulation, Paris: OECD Publishing

    31) OECD (2011). PISA in focus 2011/9 (Ekim). Paris: OECD Publishing http://www.oecd.org /pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/ 48910490.pdf

    32) Samsun, N. (2003). Hesap verebilirlik ve iyi yönetişim. İyi yönetişimin temel unsurları. Ankara: T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı, Avrupa Birliği ve Dış İlişkiler Dairesi Başkanlığı Yayını.

    33) Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability: Understandings and challenges. In Stensaker B., and Harvey L. (Eds.) Accountability in higher education. Global perspectives on trust and power. New York: Routledge

    34) Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin.

    35) Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed.). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon

    36) Vidovich, L., & Slee, R. (2001) Bringing universities to acoount? Exploring some global and local policy tensions. Journal of Educational Policy, 16(5), 431-453.

    37) Wagner, B. W. (1989). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry. Britain: Routledge.

    38) Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK). (1999). Bologna Bildirgesi. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/uluslararasi-iliskiler/bologna- bildirgesi-1999-

    39) Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK). (2010). Yükseköğretimde yeniden yapılanma 66 soruda bologna süreci uygulamaları. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30217/yuksek ogretimde_yeniden_yapilanma_66_soruda_bologna_ 2010. pdf/f3ec7784-e89d-4ee0-ad39-9f74532cd1dc

    Click Here to Zoom
    AP 1: Obtained model from confirmatory factor analysis

    Click Here to Zoom
    AP 2: Concept Map of Accountability in Higher Education Institutions

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • References
  • [ Başa Dön ] [ Öz ] [ PDF ] [ Benzer Makaleler ] [ Yazara E-Posta ] [ Editöre E-Posta ]
    Şu ana kadar web sayfamız 43247796 defa ziyaret edilmiştir.