IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v120y2024i1d10.1007_s11069-023-06228-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Turkish adaptation of the fear of earthquake scale

Author

Listed:
  • Galip Usta

    (Trabzon University)

  • Kemal Torpuş

    (Artvin Coruh University)

  • Yalçın Kanbay

    (Artvin Coruh University)

  • Sevil Çınar Özbay

    (Artvin Coruh University)

Abstract

This study was conducted to adapt the Fear of Earthquake Scale to Turkish. The methodological study, in which individuals in the 15–65 age group were included in the study, was carried out between March–April 2023. The sample consisted of 1054 participants 15 to 65 years of age divided into two for explanatory factor analysis (n = 431) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 623). The original Fear of Earthquake Scale has a one, factor structure with 7 items. The explanatory factor analysis (EFA) sample had a mean age of 26.6 + 6.7 years. Over half of the EFA participants were women (65.1%) and single (69.8%). The Turkish version of the Fear of Earthquake Scale has acceptable content and construct validity. It consists of seven items without subscales. It accounts for 65.8% of the total variance, which is quite high for a single-factor scale. It has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91, indicating high reliability. The original Fear of Earthquake Scale items are scored on a five-point Likert scale. No items are reverse-scored. The total score is the sum of the item scores. The total score ranges from 7 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater fear of earthquakes. The results indicate that the Turkish version of the Fear of Earthquake Scale is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to assess Turkish people’s fear of earthquakes.

Suggested Citation

  • Galip Usta & Kemal Torpuş & Yalçın Kanbay & Sevil Çınar Özbay, 2024. "The Turkish adaptation of the fear of earthquake scale," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(1), pages 463-476, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:120:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-023-06228-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-023-06228-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-023-06228-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-023-06228-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    2. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    3. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    4. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    5. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    6. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    7. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    8. Abolmohammad Bondori & Asghar Bagheri & Christos A. Damalas, 2024. "Protective behavior in chemical spraying among farmers of northern Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17673-17685, July.
    9. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    10. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    11. Hiroaki Daimon & Ryohei Miyamae & Wenjie Wang, 2023. "A critical review of cognitive and environmental factors of disaster preparedness: research issues and implications from the usage of “awareness (ishiki)” in Japan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(2), pages 1213-1243, June.
    12. Tanja M. Straka & Christian C. Voigt, 2022. "Threat Perception, Emotions and Social Trust of Global Bat Experts before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Hamza Umer & Yanjun Li, 2024. "Positive and negative health events and trust," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 459-479, May.
    14. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    15. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    16. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    17. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Giulia Roder & Adem Öcal & Paolo Tarolli & Slavoljub Dragićević, 2018. "The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors towards Flood Risk in Serbia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, December.
    18. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    19. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    20. Kolotylo-Kulkarni, Malgorzata & Marakas, George M. & Xia, Weidong, 2024. "Understanding protective behavior and vaccination adoption among US individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:120:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-023-06228-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.