Development and Validity-Reliability Analysis of the Cultural Bullying Scale: A Methodological Study

Development and Validity-Reliability Analysis of the Cultural Bullying Scale: A Methodological Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and Validity-Reliability Analysis of the Cultural Bullying Scale: A Methodological Study Cevriye YÜKSEL KAÇAN, Dilek Yılmaz This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7693573/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Cultural bullying, which encompasses discriminatory, exclusionary, and aggressive behaviors directed at individuals’ ethnic origin, language, beliefs, or cultural identity, constitutes a significant public health risk factor. At this point, the awareness of nurses, who constitute an essential part of healthcare services, regarding cultural bullying is of critical importance. Recognizing cultural bullying among nursing students is considered an academic and professional necessity in terms of developing cultural sensitivity, supporting equitable learning environments, and improving the quality of education and professional care. This study was conducted with the purpose of developing a scale to determine the level of cultural bullying in nursing students. Methods The population of this methodological type of research consisted of the first, second and third year nursing students of the Health Sciences Faculty of a state university in Türkiye who were registered in the school in the same semester and were currently attending classes. A socio-demographic data form and the Cultural Bullying Scale draft form, consisting of 23 items prepared in five-way Likert-type format, were used to collect research data. The construct validity of the scale was evaluated with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and its internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient. Also, Hierarchical Regression Analysis was performed in order to determine the variables reflecting the levels of cultural bullying. Results As a result of factor loading analysis, the scale was converted to its final form of 21 items by removing two items that showed overlap. The results of the factor analysis of the final 21-item version indicated a two-factor structure. These two factors explained 70.827% of total variance. The first factor explained 56.602% of total variance, and the second factor explained 14.225%. Examining the factor loads of the items, it was seen that each item loaded highly and clearly on a single factor. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.949. Conclusion The Cultural Bullying Scale which was developed was found to be a reliable and valid scale instrument to measure to level of cultural bullying in nursing students. Bullying culture scale nursing students Figures Figure 1 Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define bulling as unwanted aggressive behavior by another young person or group of young persons who are not siblings or a partner in a current relationship. This action involves an observed or perceived imbalance of strength, and is or may be repeated more than once [ 1 ]. In psychology and law, bullying is the act of influencing, oppressing, or intimidating someone in a superior position or who is powerful, usually to get them to do what you want [ 2 ]. Commonly encountered types of bullying are "physical bullying", which includes actions such as hitting, kicking and tripping, "verbal bullying", characterized by behaviors such as name-calling and mocking, "ethnic-cultural bullying", which includes spreading rumors, exclusion from the group or aggressive behavior related to the victim's ethnicity, "cyber bullying", which includes technical or relational harming behaviors using information and communication technologies, and "damaging the victim's property". All types of bullying are seen throughout the world, but there are differences according to countries, age groups and cultures [ 3 ]. According to UNESCO statistics, one in three young persons in the world are bullied, the figure varying from 7% in Tajikistan to 74% in Samoa [ 4 ]. Bullying can cause very serious problems for both the victim and his or her social environment [ 5 ]. According to research which has been conducted, bullying can cause long-term depression, anxiety and stress disorders, and even lead to suicide if there is no treatment [ 6 ]. Bullying has not only psychological and social effects, but can also have physical effects such as chronic stress, a weak immune system, physical health problems, sleep disorders, nausea, migraine and dizziness, incontinence, fatigue and loss of appetite [ 7 ]. Regarding the reasons for bullying, it is seen that multidimensional factors play a role in causing bullying. These factors can be listed as individual factors such as low empathy level, a tendency to aggression, low self-control, personality disorders, familial factors such as overly authoritarian or neglectful parenting, domestic violence, emotional deprivation, social-environmental factors such as a social environment that normalizes violence, discriminatory attitudes, peer pressure, and cultural factors [ 3 , 8 ]. On the other hand, culture is defined as the totality of the shares, values, beliefs, norms, behavioral patterns, knowledge, language, art, morality, law, tradition and other material and spiritual elements that a society or group has developed in the course of history. Culture is a dynamic structure that shapes individuals’ identity formation and social relations and is transmitted from generation to generation through processes of learning and socialization. In disciplines like anthropology, sociology and psychology, culture is seen not only as a ‘product’, but at the same time as a process, and is constantly transforming depending on social change and interactions [ 9 , 10 ]. Particularly in the last century, migration has seriously increased for such reasons as wars, ethnic conflicts, political events, disasters and unemployment. This movement has forced people with different cultures to live side by side [ 11 ]. In this way, cultural differences have become progressively more visible in social and institutional life, and this has brought about challenges as well as opportunities. As a result, researchers’ attention has focused on issues such as identity, marginalization, racism, xenophobia, cultural bullying, social harmony and integrity, and related topics has begun to be studied more intensively [ 12 – 14 ]. It has been emphasized in studies that cultural variety is a double-edged sword: it is a phenomenon that can increase the risk of conflict even while providing cognitive gains. It is reported that psychological security can offset this effect to a limited extent [ 15 ]. From the perspective of Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s Social Identity Theory, the perception of diversity initiatives, especially by immigrant groups, as a loss of status and a threat to identity can lead to the rejection of even well-intentioned policies. By identifying with their group, individuals tend to develop a positive attitude towards the group they belong to and to see their own group as superior to and different from other groups. Tajfel and Turner attempted to explain this identification with their Social Identity Theory [ 16 ]. This theory is based on three basic cognitive processes: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. According to this theory, individuals identify themselves as members of a particular group, and this membership becomes a basic element of their social identity. Social identity shapes an individual's perception of "us," strengthens in-group solidarity, and influences relationships with individuals outside the group. In the context of immigrants, social identity theory is particularly important for understanding immigrant-native relations. In a new society, immigrants try to find a balance between preserving their ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity and adapting to the social structure of the host society. But at the same time, they have a different culture, and this increases their experiences of marginalization. In other words, immigrants are more likely to be marginalized due to different cultural, ethnic or religious identities [ 16 , 17 ]. And this brings up the problem of cultural bullying. Cultural bullying is the systematic, repeated, and negative attitudes and behaviors of individuals or groups toward the cultural identity, values, beliefs, language, or traditions of another individual or group. This type of bullying is often based on a power imbalance and manifests in the form of belittling, exclusion, ridicule, forced assimilation, or rendering the targeted cultural characteristics invisible [ 18 ]. Cultural bullying, like other types of bullying, is fundamentally unfair and offensive behavior. The injustice and pain it creates for the victims also brings with it a significant moral violation. This type of bullying involves one or more aggressors belittling, humiliating, or mistreating the victim by targeting not only personal characteristics but also elements that are part of the victim’s biological or cultural identity, such as physical appearance, culture, language, or traditions. In this process, the victim receives negative messages about his or her identity and is subjected to additional stigma due to cultural differences, ethnicity, religion, language or immigrant status. This situation further deepens the feeling of helplessness created by unjust acts of aggression. In this way, cultural bullying combines with social stigma and turns into a strong element of discrimination, seriously damaging the psychosocial well-being of the victim [ 19 , 20 ]. Studies have shown that cultural bullying has psychological consequences in the exposed individuals such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and identity conflict, and increases separation and polarization at the societal level [ 6 , 18 ]. Therefore, cultural bullying must be considered as a serious psychosocial problem with multidimensional effects at both an individual and a societal level [ 18 ]. Cultural bullying is also a reflection of social power relations, cultural hierarchies and identity politics. Recognizing and preventing this type of bullying in education, health and business life is critical for preserving cultural diversity [ 18 , 20 , 21 ]. Nurses’ understanding of cultural bullying directly affects the quality of health services provided in multicultural societies. Cultural bullying, which includes discrimination, exclusion, and belittling behaviors based on language, ethnic, religious, or cultural differences, can negatively affect both the patient-nurse relationship and communication within the team. Negative experiences of this kind can lead to obstacles in individuals’ access to healthcare, problems in adherence to treatment, and risks to patient safety. For this reason, it is critical for nurses to develop the ability to recognize, prevent and manage cultural bullying in terms of both professional and holistic care [ 13 , 14 , 21 ]. In multicultural settings, nurses play a role not only as clinical care providers but also as mediators and advocates for cultural differences. Nurses with cultural sensitivity and cultural competence skills can reduce the negative consequences of cultural bullying and contribute to a more equitable, safe and effective healthcare delivery by promoting respect and inclusivity within the team [ 10 , 22 , 23 ]. Although cultural bullying is an increasingly important phenomenon in multicultural societies, psychometric tools to measure this form of behavior are quite limited in the literature. A comprehensive literature review shows only one measurement tool which was developed to measure the level of cultural bullying, and that this scale was developed by applying it to a limited age group in a specific cultural context [ 18 ]. The lack of sufficient evidence regarding the adaptability of that scale to different cultural contexts and the limited validity and reliability studies indicate a significant gap in research and practice. Therefore, the Cultural Bullying Scale was developed for nurses both by expanding the conceptual framework and by taking account of different cultural groups and socio-demographic characteristics, thus contributing a measurement scale to the literature. Methods Aim This was a methodological study conducted with the aim of developing a scale to determine the level of cultural bullying in nursing students. Design and participants The population of this methodological type of research consisted of the first, second and third year nursing students of the Health Sciences Faculty of a state university in Türkiye who were registered in the school in the same semester and were currently attending classes at the end of the spring semester of the academic year 2024–2025. The sample of the study consisted of data collected in two stages in the process of developing the Cultural Bullying Scale. Criteria for inclusion in the study Being aged 18 or over Voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study Having at least one semester of clinical experience. In the development phase of the Cultural Bullying Scale, first, an item pool was created. At this stage, writing in the related field were examined [ 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. The views of a total of nine academic experts were sought, and the items were checked for relevance to a measurement scale and for linguistic correctness and comprehensibility. The experts were academic and clinical nurses. Most had a master’s degree or higher. The draft form of the Cultural Bullying Scale was sent to the experts by email. In determining the Content Validity Index (CVI), they were first asked to evaluate each item in the draft scale as “very appropriate,” “appropriate,” “appropriate but needs modification,” and “not appropriate.” Also, the experts could give their own suggestions for each item. Then, the importance of each item was rated quantitatively from 1 to 4, representing unimportant, moderately important, important, and very important respectively. Then, for each item, the number of experts who gave their opinion on that item as “appropriate” was divided by half of the total number of experts who gave their opinions on the item [ 24 ]. The CVI for each item was determined by subtracting 1 from this ratio [ 25 ]. The responses from the experts were agreed upon and all were accepted after consultation among the research team. Items for which revision was recommended were revised. Some items were made more comprehensible without changing the meaning. Results showed an item evaluation of 0.75–0.95, and a mean significance score of each item of 3.31-4.00. Acceptable content validity was defined as the average Scale-level Content Validity Index = 1 and Item‐level Content Validity Index = 1.00 if the number of experts was five or less, and an Item‐level Content Validity Index ≥ 0.78 and an average Scale‐level Content Validity Index of ≥ 0.9 if the number of experts was six or more [ 26 ]. After that, the necessary adjustments were made, and the trial form with a total of 23 items was made ready for implementation. It is stated in the literature that before beginning to implement a measurement instrument, a pre-test should be conducted on a group of 30–40 people to compare the source and target audience, and the responses should be evaluated and necessary corrections made [ 27 ]. For this purpose, it was determined that according to the results of the pilot application conducted with 30 nursing students, the scale was one which the students could understand. The students who took part in the pilot application were not included in the study. In validity and reliability studies, it is recommended that the sample size be at least 5–10 times and at most 20 times the number of items in the scale [ 28 , 29 ]. It was seen that the sample size in this study was in accordance with the literature. In order to determine the construct validity of the scale in the study, data was collected primarily through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) processes. In this first stage, 211 students were included in the study. This group of students formed a baseline sample group to examine the factor structure and item loadings of the initial items of the scale. Following the elimination of the items based on the EFA results and the creation of the final 21-item structure of the scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the structural validity of the tool in a more comprehensive manner. For this second stage, a wider group of participants was contacted, and data were obtained from 411 participants. Care was taken to ensure that the samples in both stages were representative of the cultural bullying tendencies of university students and the factors affecting these tendencies. The data so collected were used to comprehensively examine the psychometric properties of the scale and to analyze the relationships between university students’ cultural bullying tendencies and demographic, socioeconomic, cultural interaction and personal belief or attitude characteristics. Data collection Data were collected online using a web-based survey platform between May 31, 2025, and June 18, 2025. The link to the research form created on the online platform was sent to the students’ official university e-mail addresses provided by the university. The survey instrument comprised three sections. The first section provided participants with detailed information about the purpose and scope of the study, explicitly highlighting the voluntary nature of participation, the assurance that responses would be used solely for research purposes, and the guarantee of confidentiality, with no disclosure of data to third parties or institutions. This section also included a mandatory informed consent item, presented as a binary “yes/no” option, to document participants’ willingness to take part in the study. Only those who selected “yes” were granted access to the subsequent sections of the survey. The second section contained the Socio-Demographic Data Collection Form, while the third section incorporated the Cultural Bullying Scale. Instruments A sociodemographic data form was created by the researcher to obtain demographic information about the students (demographic variables, family characteristics, cultural and social factors, religious and political views, etc.), and a draft form of the Cultural Bullying Scale consisting of 23 five-point Likert type items prepared by the researchers was used in order to develop the cultural bullying scale. Data analysis In this study, the statistical package program IBM SPSS Statistics 27 was used to analyze the data obtained, and IBM SPSS AMOS 22 was used for structural equation modeling. In order to examine the psychometric characteristics of the scale, first, explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. In this analysis, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy test and the Bartlett Sphericity Test. Factorization was performed using the Principal Component Analysis method and the variance rates explained by factor loadings were examined. Item factor loadings and potential overlap were carefully examined. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated for internal consistency reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to confirm the structural validity of the scale more comprehensively. In CFA, the fit of the two-factor model to the data set was evaluated and interpreted through various fit indices (CMIN/df, CFI, TLI, NFI, GFI, AGFI, SRMR and RMSEA). Hierarchical Regression Analysis was applied to determine the variables that predict levels of cultural bullying. In this analysis, variables such as demographic variables, family characteristics, geographical region and native language, cultural and social factors, religious belief level and political views were gradually included in the model, and their explanatory power in cultural bullying variance was examined. The explanatory power (R² and Adjusted R²) and statistical significance (F value and p value) of each model were reported. Scale scoring In the scale, developed to determine the attitudes of nursing students towards cultural bullying, a five-point Likert-type rating scale was used: “(1) strongly disagree”, “(2) disagree”, “(3) undecided”, “(4) agree” and “(5) strongly agree”. The scale had no cutoff point. The minimum score obtainable on the scale was 21, and the maximum was 105. A higher score on the scale indicated a higher level of bullying. There were no reverse-scored items on the scale. Ethics Approval Ethics committee approval for the conduct of the research was obtained from Bursa Uludağ University Health Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Date: 30.04.2025, Number: 2025/04 − 02). The principles of the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to throughout the entire process of this study. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was secured from all participants, who were thoroughly informed about the study’s objectives, scope, and confidentiality measures. Participation was strictly voluntary. Results Examining the demographic distribution of the 411 participants included in the second part of the research process, it was seen that 85.4% were female. It can be said that there was a relatively more balanced distribution in year of study. The demographic distribution of the participants is given in Table 1 . Table 1 Distribution of Participants’ Demographic Characteristics (n and %) Category n % Gender Male 60 14.6 Female 351 85.4 Year of study 1 156 38.0 2 121 29.4 3 134 32.6 Total 411 100.0 The psychometric properties of the scale to be developed were first examined, and it was discussed whether a standardized measurement tool was possible with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Thus, the process was first started with the EFA process, and principal component analysis was performed. A detailed interpretation of the factor analysis and reliability analyses conducted during the development process of the Cultural Bullying Scale is presented below. These analyses were conducted to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the tool which was to be developed. The scale development process was begun with a 23-item scale, and was finalized with a 21-item structure following these analyses. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method was used to examine the construct validity of the scale. First, the factor structure of the 23-item version was examined, and in this examination, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy and Bartlett sphericity tests. The KMO value obtained was determined as .956, which showed that the data set was perfectly suitable for factor analysis. In addition, the statistical significance of the Bartlett Sphericity Test (χ2 = 9600.636; df = 253; p < .000) confirmed that the correlation matrix between the variables was different from the identity matrix and was suitable for factor analysis. When the factor analysis results of the initial version of 23 items were examined, two factors with eigenvalues ​​above 1 were identified. These two factors explained 69.008% of the total variance. The first factor explained 55.868% of the total variance (41.051% in the rotated form), and the second factor explained 13.139% (27.957% in the rotated form). This showed that the tool could effectively explain the concept of cultural bullying in two main dimensions. At this stage, a careful examination the factor loads of the items and their possible overlap was started. As a result of the factor loading analysis, it was determined that some items were loaded with close loadings (overlapping) on ​​more than one factor. In particular, it was determined that the loading differences between the two factors of items CB2 and CB21 were below .10. This was undesirable because it could not be clearly determined which factor the items belonged to more strongly, reducing the clarity of the factor structure. This overlapping required the removal of these two items from the tool in order to make the scale tidier and more understandable. In this way, the transition was made from the 23-item trial version to the 21-item final version (supplementary file pdf.). After removing the items, factor analysis was performed again for the final 21-item version. At this stage, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was tested again. The KMO sampling adequacy value was determined as .955, which showed that the data set has a very high suitability for factor analysis. The statistical significance of the Bartlett Sphericity Test (χ2 = 8877.503; df = 210; p < .000) once again confirmed the suitability of the remaining items for factor analysis. Factor analysis results of the final 21-item version again indicated a two-factor structure. These two factors explained 70.827% of the total variance. The first factor explained 56.602% of the total variance (42.862% in the rotated form), and the second factor explained 14.225% (27.965% in the rotated form). When the factor loadings of the items were examined, it was seen that each item loaded highly and clearly on a single factor. The two dimensions that emerged as a result of the factor analysis were named in accordance with the contents of the scale items. The first factor (F1: items 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23) was named Open Cultural Bullying and Aggression because it represents direct and active hostility, humiliation and aggressive behavior towards different cultures. The second factor (F2: items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12) was named Cultural Discrimination and Prejudice because it reflects avoiding interaction with different cultures, keeping social distance, seeing one’s own culture as superior, and having prejudiced attitudes. These names clearly indicate the specific cultural dimensions of bullying that each factor measures. In this way, the cultural bullying scale was developed as a valid and reliable measurement tool with two dimensions and 21 items. In order to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale, Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated. For the 23-item initial version, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated as .954, while it was found to be .949 for the 21-item final version. Both values showed that the internal consistency of the scale was at an excellent level. Such a high reliability coefficient revealed that the scale items consistently measured the same construct and that the scale was highly reliable. Therefore, it was felt unnecessary to examine the reliability coefficient of each item separately. A scale reliability coefficient of above .95 is questioned in the literature, and it is stated that it may not be desirable in some cases. Very high Cronbach's Alpha values ​​may indicate that there is excessive repetition among the items in the scale or that there may be an unnecessarily large number of similar items. This may narrow the scope of the structure measured by the scale, and by removing some of the items, it may be possible to shorten the scale and increase its applicability. However, the values ​​in the current tool remained at a balanced level that minimized the negative effects that an excessively high level can bring, while maintaining excellent internal consistency. The Principal Components Analysis table is given in Table 2 . Table 2 Total Variance Explained by the Factors (Principal Components Analysis) Scale version KMO Bartlett’s χ2 df p 23-item version 0.956 9600.636 253 0.000 21-item final version 0.955 8877.503 210 0.000 Component Initial Eigenvalue Rotated Variance (%) Cumulative (Rotated) Initial Eigenvalue Rotated Variance (%) Cumulative (Rotated) Factor 1 12.85 41.051 41.051 11.887 42.862 42.862 Factor 2 3.022 27.957 69.008 2.987 27.965 70.827 23-item version 21-item final version Item No F1 F2 F1 F2 CB1 0.718 0.708 ~~CB2~~ ~~.459~~ ~~.550~~ CB3 0.775 0.767 CB4 0.7 0.702 CB5 0.721 0.72 CB6 0.793 0.798 CB7 0.619 0.505 0.624 0.504 CB8 0.768 0.77 CB9 0.752 0.751 CB10 0.8 0.803 CB11 0.686 0.692 CB12 0.463 0.679 0.686 CB13 0.762 0.413 0.766 CB14 0.815 0.817 CB15 0.848 0.849 CB16 0.87 0.872 CB17 0.929 0.93 CB18 0.917 0.918 CB19 0.834 0.835 CB20 0.928 0.929 ~~CB21~~ ~~.531~~ ~~.491~~ CB22 0.834 0.835 CB23 0.76 0.76 Cronbach’s Alpha 0.954 0.949 Following the EFA and reliability assessments, CFA was performed to confirm the structural validity of the tool more comprehensively. CFA results showed that the two-factor model was generally a good fit for the data set. Among the goodness of fit indices, the CMIN/df value was determined as 0.72 and the CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value was determined as .931, meeting the threshold value of ≥ .90, which is the acceptable fit criterion. Similarly, the TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) value was calculated as .913, the NFI (Normalized Fit Index) value as .914 and the GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) value as .911, all of which confirm an acceptable level of fit. The AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index) value was determined as .853, which meets the acceptable fit criterion of ≥ .85. The RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value was obtained as .079, indicating acceptable fit (≤ .08). Finally, the SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Error) value was determined as .0455. This value is below the threshold of ≤ .08, which is the good fit criterion. This point clearly demonstrates that the two-factor structure is strongly consistent with the data collected. Table 3 shows the fit indices of the two-factor structure. Table 3 Fit Indices of the Two-Factor Structure Fit index Value obtained Interpretation CMIN/df CFI .72 .931 < 5.00 = Acceptable fit ≥ .90 = Acceptable fit TLI .913 ≥ .90 = Acceptable fit NFI .914 ≥ .90 = Acceptable fit GFI .911 ≥ .90 = Acceptable fit AGFI .853 ≥ .85 = Acceptable fit SRMR .0455 ≤ .08 = Good fit RMSEA .079 ≤ .08 = Acceptable (marginal fit) Figure 1 shows the standardized path diagram of the two-factor CFA model for the Cultural Bullying Scale. This diagram shows the relationships between the previously identified factors Obvious Cultural Bullying and Aggression (F1) and Cultural Discrimination and Prejudice (F2) and the observed items comprising these factors (CB1 - CB23). The one-way arrows extending from the factors to the items represent the factor loadings, and these values ​​reflect how well the items represent the relevant factors. It can be seen that all factor loadings are high and statistically significant. This proves that the items strongly represent the factors to which they belong. For example, the loadings of the items relating to F1 vary between .74 and .93, while the loadings of the items relating to F2 vary between .62 and .84. The two-way arrow between the factors shows the correlation between F1 and F2, and this correlation was determined to be .64. This suggests that the two dimensions are related but distinct constructs. The small circles marked with "e" around the items represent the error variances. These values ​​include the part of the items that cannot be explained by the factors and the measurement errors. This CFA and the high model fit indices obtained prove that the theoretically predicted two-factor structure of the cultural bullying scale is confirmed by experimental data. Examination of factor loadings and error variances reveals that the items make a strong contribution to the overall structure of the scale. In the light of this validity and reliability evidence, the cultural bullying scale, with two dimensions and 21 items, is accepted as a valid and reliable measurement tool which has been added to the literature. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted to determine the variables that predict cultural bullying levels provide important findings regarding the multidimensional nature of the issue. This analytical approach allows us to progressively evaluate the explanatory power of different categories of predictor variables on cultural bullying. Each model examines the increase in cultural bullying variance by adding a specific set of new variables to the previous model. This method makes it easier to understand the effects which variables show alone and the complex relationships they exhibit in combination with other factors. In the first stage of the analysis, demographic variables predicting cultural bullying were included in the model (Model 1). This model explains a statistically significant portion of the variance in cultural bullying. The explanatory power of the adjusted model was found to be 2.3% (Adjusted R 2 = 0.023). The general statistical significance of the model was found to be at a high level (F (5.405) = 2.96, p < 0.05). When demographic predictors were examined in detail, it was determined that second year students (β = 2.848, p < 0.05) and third year students (β = 3.737, p < 0.01) had significantly higher cultural bullying scores compared to first year students. This indicates that cultural bullying tendencies may increase in the later stages of the academic process. Another finding, regarding the marital status variable, shows that the cultural bullying scores of married participants were statistically significantly lower than those of single participants (β = -12.385, p < 0.05). Other demographic factors such as age and gender were found not to significantly predict cultural bullying in Model 1. This suggests that an individual’s basic demographic characteristics have certain influences on cultural attitudes. In the second stage (Model 2), in addition to the demographic variables in Model 1, the variables of family characteristics (mother’s and father’s education level, family income status), geographical region and mother tongue were included in the model. It is observed that this model explains a larger and statistically significant portion of the cultural bullying variance (R² = 0.148). The adjusted explanatory power of the model has increased to 10.0% (Adjusted R² = 0.100). The general statistical significance of the model was found to be at a very high level (F (22.388) = 3.07, p < 0.001). The demographic variable, where the cultural bullying scores of the second year (β = 3.077, p < 0.05) and third year (β = 3.738, p < 0.01) students were significantly higher than those of the first year students, was also preserved in this model. This suggests that year of study is a consistent predictor of cultural bullying. In the analysis of family characteristics, it was found that the cultural bullying scores of the participants whose mothers were illiterate were statistically significantly lower than those of the group whose mothers were primary school graduates (β = -9.852, p < 0.001). This suggests that parental education level has a complex mechanism of influence on cultural attitudes. It was determined that other variables of family, geographic region and native language did not significantly predict cultural bullying in Model 2. In the third stage (Model 3), cultural and social factors (experience abroad, level of foreign language proficiency, density of foreigners in the region, personal attitude towards cultural diversity and participation in social responsibility projects) were included in the model in addition to the variables in Model 2. This model was found to explain a much higher and statistically significant portion of the cultural bullying variance compared to previous models (R² = 0.358). The adjusted explanatory power of the model reached 29.4% (Adjusted R² = 0.294). The overall statistical significance of the model was also determined to be very high (F (37.373) = 5.62, p < 0.001). At this stage, it was observed that some demographic variables (e.g. marital status, second year) that were significant in previous models lost their statistical significance in this model. This suggests that newly added cultural and social factors mask these demographic effects or are stronger predictors. In the analysis of father’s education level, it was determined that the cultural bullying scores of the participants whose fathers were high school (β = 2.772, p < 0.05) or university (β = 3.533, p < 0.05) graduates were significantly higher than those of the group whose fathers were primary school graduates. This finding suggests that paternal education level is positively associated with cultural bullying, even when other variables are controlled. It was determined that the presence of many foreigners in the area of residence (β = 6.723, p < 0.01) significantly predicted cultural bullying. More importantly, it was observed that having “Neutral” (β = 6.081, p < 0.001) or “Against” (β = 14.406, p < 0.001) attitudes towards cultural diversity predicted cultural bullying statistically significantly and quite strongly compared to the reference group with “Positive” attitudes. Participation in social responsibility projects was also found to significantly predict cultural bullying (β = 2.867, p < 0.05). This clearly demonstrates that cultural interactions and attitudes have a direct and strong impact on cultural bullying. In the final stage (Model 4), in addition to all variables in Model 3, the variables of religious belief level and political view were included in the model. This final model explained the largest and most statistically significant portion of the variance in cultural bullying (R² = 0.403). The adjusted explanatory power of the model was determined to be 33.3% (Adjusted R² = 0.333). The overall statistical significance of the model was also found to be very high (F (43.367) = 5.77, p < 0.001). Here, the explanatory power of the model exceeds 40%. Among the demographic variables, only the cultural bullying scores of third year students were significantly higher than those of first year students, and this was retained in this model (β = 3.081, p < 0.05). Regarding family characteristics, it was determined that the scores of the participants whose mothers were iIliterate were significantly lower (β = -8.520, p < 0.01), and the scores of the participants whose fathers were high school (β = 2.439, p < 0.05) or university graduates (β = 3.503, p < 0.01) were significantly higher. This model also continues to show that the presence of many foreigners in the region (β = 6.036, p < 0.01) and the attitudes of “Undecided” (β = 6.030, p < 0.001) or “Against” (β = 13.966, p < 0.001) towards cultural diversity significantly and strongly predict cultural bullying. Participation in social responsibility projects also continues to significantly predict cultural bullying (β = 2.423, p < 0.05). It was found that the added variables of religious belief and political view did not predict cultural bullying at a statistically significant level when all other variables were controlled. This finding suggests that the influence of religious and political views is absorbed by broader cultural and social factors, such as general attitudes toward cultural diversity, or plays an indirect role. The findings of the hierarchical regression analysis clearly show that the strongest and most consistent variables in predicting cultural bullying are personal attitudes towards cultural diversity. Especially, the attitude of “I am against” increases the level of cultural bullying very strongly. It was determined that the density of foreigners in the area of residence is also an important predictor. Demographic and family characteristics such as year of study and parental education level were also observed to be associated with cultural bullying tendencies. These findings suggest that cultural bullying is a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by both personal attitudes and environmental and socioeconomic factors. Hierarchical regression analysis of variables predicting cultural bullying is presented in Table 4 . Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Variables Predicting Cultural Bullying Variable/Category Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Demographic Variables Gender (Ref: Male) - Female -0.866 (0.591) -2.782 (0.100) -2.658 (0.087) -1.886 (0.236) Year of study (Ref: 1st year) − 2nd year 2.848 * (0.044) 3.077 * (0.031) 2.224 (0.101) 2.179 (0.105) − 3rd year 3.737 ** (0.009) 3.738 ** (0.011) 2.571 (0.091) 3.081 * (0.043) Marital status (Ref: Single) - Married -12.385 * (0.020) -11.754 * (0.024) -6.084 (0.206) -2.362 (0.619) Age 0.013 (0.956) 0.006 (0.980) 0.006 (0.979) -0.020 (0.927) Family Characteristics Mother’s education (Ref: Primary school) - High school - 0.014 (0.993) 0.732 (0.628) -0.462 (0.759) - Literate - -0.465 (0.837) 0.733 (0.737) 0.511 (0.812) - Illiterate - -9.852 ** (< 0.001) -7.724 ** (0.004) -8.520 ** (0.001) - University - 1.317 (0.455) 0.767 (0.633) -0.195 (0.904) Father’s education (Ref: Primary school) - High school - 2.540 (0.057) 2.772 * (0.024) 2.439 * (0.042) - Literate - 4.674 (0.197) 6.298 (0.060) 6.217 (0.056) - Illiterate - 0.396 (0.950) 3.592 (0.529) 2.328 (0.676) - University - 2.720 (0.093) 3.533 * (0.019) 3.503 * (0.017) Family income (Ref: Income Expenditure - -0.569 (0.814) -0.657 (0.770) -0.451 (0.837) - Income = Expenditure - -3.541 (0.064) -2.503 (0.163) -2.316 (0.186) Geographical area (Ref: Mediterranean) - East Anatolia - 0.704 (0.827) 1.262 (0.672) 2.321 (0.430) - Aegean - -3.687 (0.238) -1.835 (0.514) -0.130 (0.963) - SE Anatolia - -4.259 (0.227) -2.371 (0.463) -0.932 (0.769) - Central Anatolia - 0.951 (0.761) -0.467 (0.869) 0.656 (0.813) - Black Sea - 2.270 (0.515) 2.998 (0.337) 3.086 (0.312) - Marmara - 1.337 (0.632) 1.886 (0.460) 3.036 (0.228) Mother tongue (Ref: Other) - Turkish - 0.005 (0.998) -1.903 (0.385) -2.824 (0.190) Cultural and Social Factors Overseas experience (Ref: Yes) - - 1.521 (0.362) 1.781 (0.277) Knowledge of foreign language (Ref: Good) - - - Poor - - 1.923 (0.352) 0.846 (0.679) - Fair - - 2.820 (0.151) 2.838 (0.141) Area of residence (Ref: Few foreigners) - - - Many foreigners - - 6.723 ** (0.003) 6.036 ** (0.006) Attitude to cultural diversity (Ref: Positive) - - - Undecided - - 6.081 ** (< 0.001) 6.030 ** (< 0.001) - Against - - 14.406 ** (< 0.001) 13.966 ** (< 0.001) Social responsibility projects (Ref: I participate) - - 2.867 * (0.020) 2.423 * (0.048) Religious and political views Religious belief (Ref: Low) - - - - Medium - - - 1.342 (0.621) - High - - - -3.932 (0.175) Political views (Ref: Right) - - - - Extreme left - - - 3.205 (0.421) - Liberal - - - -2.620 (0.394) - Moderate right - - - -3.649 (0.253) - Moderate left - - - -3.328 (0.295) Model Statistics R² 0.035 0.148 0.358 0.403 Adjusted R² 0.023 0.100 0.294 0.333 F (df) 2.96 (5.405) * 3.07 (22.388) ** 5.62 (37.373) ** 5.77 (43.367) ** p (Model) 0.012 * < 0.001 ** < 0.001 ** < 0.001 ** Discussion Nurses equipped with cultural sensitivity and cultural competence skills in multicultural settings can reduce the negative consequences of cultural bullying by promoting respect and inclusivity within the team and can contribute to a more equitable, safe and effective healthcare delivery [ 10 , 22 , 23 ]. Nurses’ mastery of the issue of cultural bullying directly affects the quality of health services provided in multicultural societies. Therefore, it is critical for nurses to develop the ability to recognize, prevent and manage cultural bullying in both professional and holistic care [ 13 , 14 , 21 ]. Also, nursing students, who are important healthcare service providers, shoulder important roles in multicultural structures that take in cultural differences. It has been noted in the literature that no valid and reliable measurement tool has been developed to determine the level of cultural bullying among nursing students. As a result of this study, it was found that the Cultural Bullying Scale is a reliable and valid measurement tool for assessing the level of cultural bullying among nursing students who are part of the healthcare team in countries with a high level of cultural diversity. The first step in scale development work was to examine the studies in the literature. In examining the content validity of the Cultural Bullying Scale, a method based on expert opinion was followed. Articles that were suggested for editing were reorganized and made more understandable. First, the factor structure of the 23-item version was examined. The KMO value obtained was .956, and the result of the Bartlett test applied to determine the sampling adequacy was found to be χ2 = 9600.636; df = 253; p < .001. In this way, it was determined that the data were suitable for EFA and the sample size of the scale was quite sufficient. This result was found to be consistent with the literature [ 30 , 31 ]. As a result of the factor loading analysis conducted in the study, it was determined that the loading differences between the two factors of the items CB2 and CB21 of the Cultural Bullying Scale were below .10. This overlap resulted in the removal of these two items from the tool in order to make the scale more understandable, and the scale changed from a 23-item trial version to the final version of 21 items. As a result of the study, it was determined that the final 21-item Cultural Bullying Scale consisted of two factors and explained 70.827% of the total variance. Additionally, the scale item loadings were found to be .463-.930. The first factor (F1) was named Open Cultural Bullying and Aggression because it represents direct and active hostility, humiliation, and aggressive behavior toward people of different cultures. The second factor (F2) is named Cultural Discrimination and Prejudice because it reflects avoiding interaction with different cultures, keeping social distance, seeing one’s own culture as superior, and having prejudiced attitudes. These designations clearly articulate the specific dimensions of cultural bullying that each factor measures. Consequently, the cultural bullying scale was developed as a valid and reliable two-dimensional, 21-item measurement tool. As a result of the study, according to the internal consistency reliability results of the Cultural Bullying scale, the Cronbach alpha value of the total scale was found to be 0.949. It is reported in the literature that scale (level/construct) Cronbach alpha values ​​higher than 0.80 represent ideal internal consistency [ 26 , 32 ]. Therefore, this result shows that the internal consistency of the Cultural Bullying Scale is excellent [ 26 , 31 , 33 ]. In this study, CFA was conducted to confirm the structural validity of the Cultural Bullying Scale in a more comprehensive manner. For CFA analysis, CMIN/df, GFI, AGFI, CFI, RMSEA and SRMR fit indices are recommended [ 34 , 35 ]. CFI, AGFI, GFI values ​​between 0.95 and 1.00 indicate excellent fit, while RMSEA values ​​between 0.05 and 0.08 indicate acceptable fit [ 36 ]. The fit index values ​​of the Cultural Bullying Scale were found to be CMIN/df 0.72, GFI 0.911, AGFI 0.853, CFI 0.931, TLI 0.913, NFI 0.914, RMSEA 0.079 and SRMR 0.0455. When the results were examined, it was seen from the CFA results that the two-factor model showed a good overall fit to the data set. Thus, the results of the CFA support the construct validity of the scale [ 37 ]. In a scale study conducted by Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. to determine cultural bullying in adolescents, the fit index values ​​were found to be χ2/SD 10320.64, RMSEA .077, SRMR .06, CFI .96, and NFI .95 [ 18 ]. In another study by Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. on cultural bullying scale fit among adolescents in Latin America, χ2/SD was found to be 3075.286, NNFI .726, CFI .768, RMSEA .073, and SRMR .078 [ 38 ]. The results are seen to be similar. From the findings obtained, it is seen that all index values ​​of the Cultural Bullying Scale are between normal and acceptable values, the scale exhibits good fit and its structural validity is appropriate, there is significance between the items and factors, and therefore this scale is suitable for measuring the cultural bullying level of nursing students. The item-total correlation coefficient is determined by examining the relationship between the scores obtained from the scale items and the scores obtained from the scale as a whole. This analysis is performed to determine whether the items can exemplify similar behaviors [ 39 ]. While the loadings of the items belonging to Factor 1 range from .74 to .93, the loadings of the items belonging to Factor 2 range from .62 to .84. This suggests that the two dimensions are related but separate constructs. The acceptable level of item-total correlation coefficients of the Cultural Bullying scale indicates that the scale items measure similar constructs. The findings of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted in this study clearly showed that the strongest and most consistent variables in predicting cultural bullying were personal attitudes towards cultural diversity. It has been observed that the density of foreigners in the area of ​​residence is also an important predictor, and demographic and family characteristics such as year of study and parental education level are also related to cultural bullying tendencies. This shows that cultural bullying is a multidimensional phenomenon and is influenced by both personal attitudes and environmental and socioeconomic factors. According to previous research, it has been explained that cultural bullying can occur frequently in societies where ethnic or cultural pluralism is high [ 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. In addition, some studies indicate that family structure has a significant effect on cultural bullying [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. These results support our study findings. The study found that third and second-year students had significantly higher cultural bullying scores than first-year students. This suggests that cultural bullying tendencies may increase in the later stages of the academic process. Also, while our study found that gender did not significantly predict cultural bullying, some studies in the literature found that it did [ 38 , 46 ]. It was thought that this was due to the fact that the study was conducted in countries with different cultures. Limitations The strengths of this study are that it provides a valid and reliable tool which was developed to determine the level of cultural bullying among nursing students who are healthcare providers in countries such as Turkey which have a high level of cultural diversity. The study also has a number of limitations. Conducting the research at a single university and using the convenience sampling method may affect the generalizability of the research. There may also be some bias, and the fact that all of the survey questions are based on nursing students’ own statements may affect the bias of the study. However, in order to reduce bias, we envisioned a 20% sample attrition rate and strictly controlled the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the sample. Students were also asked to fill out the surveys anonymously to reduce information bias. Considering ll these limitations, there is a need for further studies with larger samples and involving nursing students from different cultures, and also the development of scales in different languages. Conclusion As a result of this research, it was determined that the Cultural Bullying Scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the cultural bullying level of nursing students. This scale can help determine the level of cultural bullying among nursing students who are healthcare providers in countries such as Türkiye which have significant immigration and cultural diversity. Abbreviations CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CB: Cultural Bullying Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethics committee approval for the conduct of the research was obtained from Bursa Uludağ University Health Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Date: 30.04.2025, Number: 2025/04-02). The principles of the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to throughout the entire process of this study. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was secured from all participants, who were thoroughly informed about the study’s objectives, scope, and confidentiality measures. Participation was strictly voluntary. Competing interests: The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest. Authors' contributions: All authors contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. CYK and DY made significant contributions to the study design, sampling, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation. CYK and DY participated in drafting and critically revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank all the students who participated in the study. Data availability: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article. Consent for publication: Not applicable. References CDC. Bullying|Youth Violence Prevention.; 2025. https://search.cdc.gov/search/?query=bullying&dpage=1 (Accessed: 12 July 2025). Wei X, Cheung HN, Williams JM, Chan SWY. The role of perfectionism in bullying: A cross-gender and cultural network analysis. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2024;95:2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2024.101723 Chen X, Wang L, Wang Y. Experiences of bullying and victimization and adolescents’ life satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2024;76:2-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101930 UNESCO. New SDG 4 Data on Bullying.; 2018. https://uis.unesco.org/en/news/new-sdg-4-data-bullying Gaffney H, Ttofi MM, Farringon DP. What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. J Sch Psychol. 2021;85:37-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.12.002 Yin H, Han Z, Li Y. Traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and quality of life among adolescents in 35 countries: Do cultural values matter? Soc Sci Med. 2024;340:2-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116499 He Y, Xie G, Xie GD, et al. Bidirectional associations among school bullying, depressive symptoms and sleep problems in adolescents: A cross-lagged longitudinal approach. J Affect Disord. 2022;298:590-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.038 Hikmat R, Yosep I, Hernawaty T, Mardhiyah A. A Scoping Review of Anti-Bullying Interventions: Reducing Traumatic Effect of Bullying Among Adolescents. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024;17:289-304. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S443841 Wong D. Cultural Anthropology is Signed by the Concept of Culture Itself. Journal of Anthropology Reports. 2023;6:1-2. https://doi.org/10.35248/2684-1304.23.6.179 Hua J, Kondo A, Moross J. Enhancing intercultural sensitivity in Japanese nursing students through international online nursing courses: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;128:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105870 Bilgiç Ş, Şahin İ. Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism Levels of Nursing Students. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Health Science. 2019;10:230-6. Akca A, Ayaz-Alkaya S. Determinants of attitudes towards refugees and intercultural sensitivity of nursing students: A descriptive and correlational study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;124:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105772 Özdemir S, Sevinç S. Correlation between cultural competence, xenophobia, and attitudes towards brain drain in nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;131:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105963 Mert Karadaş M, Bilgin A, Uslu Sahan F, Özdemir L. Determining the predictors of nursing students’ xenophobic tendency toward refugees. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;122:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105722 Verwijs C, Russo D. The Double-Edged Sword of Diversity: How Diversity, Conflict, and Psychological Safety Impact Software Teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2024;50:141-57. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2023.3339881 Srivastava N, Awasthi P. Acculturation and Social Identity of Refugees and Students in New Society: A Psychological Analysis. Article in International Journal of Research in Social Sciences. 2019;9:313-22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378341591 Mete M. Social Identity Theory and the Process of Othering Immigrant Identity: A Psychopolitical Analysis on Stereotyping. Journal of Academic Inquiries. 2023;18:470-89. https://doi.org/10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1323189 Rodríguez-Hidalgo AJ, Calmaestra J, Casas, J.A., Ortega-Ruiz, R. Ethnic-Cultural Bullying Versus Personal Bullying: Specificity and Measurement of Discriminatory Aggression and Victimization Among Adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:1-12. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00046 Cardoso JB, Szlyk HS, Goldbach J, Swank P, Zvolensky MJ. General and ethnic-biased bullying among latino students: Exploring risks of depression, suicidal ideation, and substance use. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;20:816–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0593-5 Caravita SC, Stefanelli S, Mazzone A, Cadei L, Thornberg R, Ambrosini B. When the bullied peer is native-born vs. immigrant: A mixed-method study with a sample of native-born and immigrant adolescents. Scand J Psychol. 2020;6:97-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12565 Pirhofer J, Bükki J, Vaismoradi M, Glarcher M, Paal P. A qualitative exploration of cultural safety in nursing from the perspectives of Advanced Practice Nurses: meaning, barriers, and prospects. BMC Nurs. 2022;21:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00960-9 Skaria R, Montayre J. Cultural intelligence and intercultural effectiveness among nurse educators: A mixed-method study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;121:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105714 Coşkun Erçelik H, Çamlica T, Özkan A. An Evaluation of Turkish Nurses’ Cultural Intelligence Levels and Intercultural Communication Apprehension. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2022;33:550-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10436596221086600 Hu Q, Qin Z, Zhan M, Wu B, Chen Z, Xu T. Development of a trigger tool for the detection of adverse drug events in Chinese geriatric inpatients using the Delphi method. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41:1174-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00871-x Hu J, Fallacaro MD, Jiang L, et al. IFNA approved Chinese anaesthesia nurse education program: A Delphi method. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.017 Zhu Y, Zhan YC, Zhu JM, et al. The development and psychometric validation of a Chinese empathy motivation scale. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:2599-2612. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14846 Esin MN. Research Process Application and Critique in Nursing. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN, eds. Data collection methods and tools & Reliability and validity of data collection methods and tools. 4nd ed. İstanbul: Nobel Medicine Publishing; 2020, p. 216-18. Büyüköztürk Ş. Data Analysis Handbook. 23rd ed. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing; 2017. Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2018. Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. J Royal Statis Soci Ser B. 1954;16:296-8. Wang X, Qi W, Chan S, Shi Z. Development and psychometric evaluation of a Chinese version of auditory hallucination risk assessment scale in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29:3414-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15379 Wu ML. Wen juan tong ji fen xi shi wu: SPSS cao zuo yu ying yong [Questionnaire statistical analysis practice: SPSS operation and application]. Chongqing: Chongqing University Publishing House, 2010. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scale. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003. Barrett P. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personal Individual Differ. 2007;42:815-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018 Ta’an WAF, Rababah JA, Al-Hammouri MM, Yousef J, Mukattash TL, Williams B. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the six-dimension scale of nursing performance-arabic version. BMC Nurs. 2024;23:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01740-3 Hair JF Jr, Hult GT, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications; 2016. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc Equ Mod: A Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6:1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Rodríguez-Hidalgo AJ, Pantaleón Y, Ortega-Ruiz R, Herrera-López YM. Ethnic-cultural bullying among adolescents in multicultural environments: A study in Latin America. Int J Intercultural Relat. 2025;107:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102196 Bozkurt FD, Özdemir S. Validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the human papillomavirus knowledge scale: a methodological study. J Turkish German Gynec Assoc. 2023;24:177. https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2022-10-9 Bayram S, Sun S, Korol L, Ozdemir M, Stattin H. Adolescents’ engagement in ethnic harassment: Prejudiced beliefs in social networks and classroom ethnic diversity. J Youth Adolesc. 2018;47:1151-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0795-0 Vitoroulis I, Vaillancourt T. Ethnic group differences in bullying perpetration: A meta-analysis. J Rese Adolesc. 2018;28:752-71. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jora.12393 Xu M, Macrynikola N, Waseem M, Miranda R. Racial and ethnic differences in bullying: Review and implications for intervention. Aggress Violent Behavior. 2020;50:101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101340 Chu X, Chen Z. The associations between parenting and bullying among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Youth Adolesc. 2025;54:928-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02108-1 Georgiou SN, Ioannou M, Stavrinides P. Cultural values as mediators between parenting styles and bullying behavior at school. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2018;21:27-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9413-y Lucas S, Jernbro C, Tindberg Y, Janson S. Bully, bullied and abused. Associations between violence at home and bullying in childhood. Scandinavian J Public Healt. 2016;44:27-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815610238 Herrera-L´opez M, Romera E, Ortega-Ruiz R. Bullying y cyberbullying en Colombia; coocurrencia en adolescentes escolarizados. Revista Latinoamericana Déle Psicolog. 2017;49:163-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2016.08.001 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Culturalbullyingscale.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7693573","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":528463972,"identity":"2e0a0603-d86b-4bc2-bd27-12b0b9ecdad4","order_by":0,"name":"Cevriye YÜKSEL KAÇAN","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bursa Uludağ University, Public Health Nursing","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cevriye","middleName":"YÜKSEL","lastName":"KAÇAN","suffix":""},{"id":528463973,"identity":"93228d0a-2a04-402e-b8b6-7345db38cc26","order_by":1,"name":"Dilek Yılmaz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bursa Uludağ University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dilek","middleName":"","lastName":"Yılmaz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-23 11:08:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7693573/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7693573/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93620103,"identity":"f833c66a-9f5f-4f96-a55d-126c1d2ff486","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":179256,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"30.09.2025clearcopymanuscript.culturalbullyingKopya.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/9272d85388d4efde497fd105.docx"},{"id":93621245,"identity":"5cddaa4a-2a2c-4c0b-83d3-80f00b9f8146","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 18:02:15","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5237,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"49f2f72c30d14b1a975e3daf67fe2bd1.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/90f9dbf4a5349ac91c0005c7.json"},{"id":93620110,"identity":"3a2d8944-6d26-41d0-9875-f4f4a7d5ae79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16747,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Culturalbullyingscale.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/e749b033417519b0c342c71c.docx"},{"id":93620108,"identity":"0029f110-9e66-4575-86ea-d503a46ad0c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":167589,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"49f2f72c30d14b1a975e3daf67fe2bd11enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/6f3b0eb00c4d7ce9c318f4ee.xml"},{"id":93620106,"identity":"ac02e5c4-3498-4a94-b480-36c4311345e0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":43272,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/8d99f250b38f13d5aeeda189.png"},{"id":93620109,"identity":"f38fd8a2-9a7e-41b9-adcf-d97904d7e4e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":165770,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"49f2f72c30d14b1a975e3daf67fe2bd11structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/b54cfb9d79fd8d9b9c12227c.xml"},{"id":93620111,"identity":"49879bfb-fa4c-4260-896d-a8999bbd594b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":174499,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/b9f75ee7548eeab0a8b60278.html"},{"id":93620532,"identity":"57d94406-518d-483d-8bd6-23327df19054","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:54:15","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":105886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStandardized Path Diagram of the Two-Factor CFA Model of the Cultural Bullying Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/c5227e3c8304934602e71cae.jpeg"},{"id":104834835,"identity":"859efe92-ee30-4197-b74e-ffe3acf43a3b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 17:32:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1260168,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/0499c639-724c-41b5-a586-47ea2d517d37.pdf"},{"id":93620107,"identity":"8759690e-c8f1-413a-83ff-419b04d73144","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 17:46:15","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16747,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Culturalbullyingscale.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7693573/v1/788dc68b44874f33256ac9ee.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and Validity-Reliability Analysis of the Cultural Bullying Scale: A Methodological Study","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define bulling as unwanted aggressive behavior by another young person or group of young persons who are not siblings or a partner in a current relationship. This action involves an observed or perceived imbalance of strength, and is or may be repeated more than once [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. In psychology and law, bullying is the act of influencing, oppressing, or intimidating someone in a superior position or who is powerful, usually to get them to do what you want [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Commonly encountered types of bullying are \"physical bullying\", which includes actions such as hitting, kicking and tripping, \"verbal bullying\", characterized by behaviors such as name-calling and mocking, \"ethnic-cultural bullying\", which includes spreading rumors, exclusion from the group or aggressive behavior related to the victim's ethnicity, \"cyber bullying\", which includes technical or relational harming behaviors using information and communication technologies, and \"damaging the victim's property\". All types of bullying are seen throughout the world, but there are differences according to countries, age groups and cultures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. According to UNESCO statistics, one in three young persons in the world are bullied, the figure varying from 7% in Tajikistan to 74% in Samoa [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBullying can cause very serious problems for both the victim and his or her social environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. According to research which has been conducted, bullying can cause long-term depression, anxiety and stress disorders, and even lead to suicide if there is no treatment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Bullying has not only psychological and social effects, but can also have physical effects such as chronic stress, a weak immune system, physical health problems, sleep disorders, nausea, migraine and dizziness, incontinence, fatigue and loss of appetite [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Regarding the reasons for bullying, it is seen that multidimensional factors play a role in causing bullying. These factors can be listed as individual factors such as low empathy level, a tendency to aggression, low self-control, personality disorders, familial factors such as overly authoritarian or neglectful parenting, domestic violence, emotional deprivation, social-environmental factors such as a social environment that normalizes violence, discriminatory attitudes, peer pressure, and cultural factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, culture is defined as the totality of the shares, values, beliefs, norms, behavioral patterns, knowledge, language, art, morality, law, tradition and other material and spiritual elements that a society or group has developed in the course of history. Culture is a dynamic structure that shapes individuals\u0026rsquo; identity formation and social relations and is transmitted from generation to generation through processes of learning and socialization. In disciplines like anthropology, sociology and psychology, culture is seen not only as a \u0026lsquo;product\u0026rsquo;, but at the same time as a process, and is constantly transforming depending on social change and interactions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Particularly in the last century, migration has seriously increased for such reasons as wars, ethnic conflicts, political events, disasters and unemployment. This movement has forced people with different cultures to live side by side [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. In this way, cultural differences have become progressively more visible in social and institutional life, and this has brought about challenges as well as opportunities. As a result, researchers\u0026rsquo; attention has focused on issues such as identity, marginalization, racism, xenophobia, cultural bullying, social harmony and integrity, and related topics has begun to be studied more intensively [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. It has been emphasized in studies that cultural variety is a double-edged sword: it is a phenomenon that can increase the risk of conflict even while providing cognitive gains. It is reported that psychological security can offset this effect to a limited extent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. From the perspective of Henri Tajfel and John Turner\u0026rsquo;s Social Identity Theory, the perception of diversity initiatives, especially by immigrant groups, as a loss of status and a threat to identity can lead to the rejection of even well-intentioned policies. By identifying with their group, individuals tend to develop a positive attitude towards the group they belong to and to see their own group as superior to and different from other groups. Tajfel and Turner attempted to explain this identification with their Social Identity Theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. This theory is based on three basic cognitive processes: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. According to this theory, individuals identify themselves as members of a particular group, and this membership becomes a basic element of their social identity. Social identity shapes an individual's perception of \"us,\" strengthens in-group solidarity, and influences relationships with individuals outside the group. In the context of immigrants, social identity theory is particularly important for understanding immigrant-native relations. In a new society, immigrants try to find a balance between preserving their ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity and adapting to the social structure of the host society. But at the same time, they have a different culture, and this increases their experiences of marginalization. In other words, immigrants are more likely to be marginalized due to different cultural, ethnic or religious identities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. And this brings up the problem of cultural bullying.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural bullying is the systematic, repeated, and negative attitudes and behaviors of individuals or groups toward the cultural identity, values, beliefs, language, or traditions of another individual or group. This type of bullying is often based on a power imbalance and manifests in the form of belittling, exclusion, ridicule, forced assimilation, or rendering the targeted cultural characteristics invisible [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Cultural bullying, like other types of bullying, is fundamentally unfair and offensive behavior. The injustice and pain it creates for the victims also brings with it a significant moral violation. This type of bullying involves one or more aggressors belittling, humiliating, or mistreating the victim by targeting not only personal characteristics but also elements that are part of the victim\u0026rsquo;s biological or cultural identity, such as physical appearance, culture, language, or traditions. In this process, the victim receives negative messages about his or her identity and is subjected to additional stigma due to cultural differences, ethnicity, religion, language or immigrant status. This situation further deepens the feeling of helplessness created by unjust acts of aggression. In this way, cultural bullying combines with social stigma and turns into a strong element of discrimination, seriously damaging the psychosocial well-being of the victim [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies have shown that cultural bullying has psychological consequences in the exposed individuals such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and identity conflict, and increases separation and polarization at the societal level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, cultural bullying must be considered as a serious psychosocial problem with multidimensional effects at both an individual and a societal level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Cultural bullying is also a reflection of social power relations, cultural hierarchies and identity politics. Recognizing and preventing this type of bullying in education, health and business life is critical for preserving cultural diversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNurses\u0026rsquo; understanding of cultural bullying directly affects the quality of health services provided in multicultural societies. Cultural bullying, which includes discrimination, exclusion, and belittling behaviors based on language, ethnic, religious, or cultural differences, can negatively affect both the patient-nurse relationship and communication within the team. Negative experiences of this kind can lead to obstacles in individuals\u0026rsquo; access to healthcare, problems in adherence to treatment, and risks to patient safety. For this reason, it is critical for nurses to develop the ability to recognize, prevent and manage cultural bullying in terms of both professional and holistic care [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. In multicultural settings, nurses play a role not only as clinical care providers but also as mediators and advocates for cultural differences. Nurses with cultural sensitivity and cultural competence skills can reduce the negative consequences of cultural bullying and contribute to a more equitable, safe and effective healthcare delivery by promoting respect and inclusivity within the team [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough cultural bullying is an increasingly important phenomenon in multicultural societies, psychometric tools to measure this form of behavior are quite limited in the literature. A comprehensive literature review shows only one measurement tool which was developed to measure the level of cultural bullying, and that this scale was developed by applying it to a limited age group in a specific cultural context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. The lack of sufficient evidence regarding the adaptability of that scale to different cultural contexts and the limited validity and reliability studies indicate a significant gap in research and practice. Therefore, the Cultural Bullying Scale was developed for nurses both by expanding the conceptual framework and by taking account of different cultural groups and socio-demographic characteristics, thus contributing a measurement scale to the literature.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAim\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis was a methodological study conducted with the aim of developing a scale to determine the level of cultural bullying in nursing students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDesign and participants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe population of this methodological type of research consisted of the first, second and third year nursing students of the Health Sciences Faculty of a state university in T\u0026uuml;rkiye who were registered in the school in the same semester and were currently attending classes at the end of the spring semester of the academic year 2024\u0026ndash;2025. The sample of the study consisted of data collected in two stages in the process of developing the Cultural Bullying Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCriteria for inclusion in the study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeing aged 18 or over\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eVoluntarily agreeing to participate in the study\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHaving at least one semester of clinical experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the development phase of the Cultural Bullying Scale, first, an item pool was created. At this stage, writing in the related field were examined [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. The views of a total of nine academic experts were sought, and the items were checked for relevance to a measurement scale and for linguistic correctness and comprehensibility. The experts were academic and clinical nurses. Most had a master\u0026rsquo;s degree or higher. The draft form of the Cultural Bullying Scale was sent to the experts by email. In determining the Content Validity Index (CVI), they were first asked to evaluate each item in the draft scale as \u0026ldquo;very appropriate,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;appropriate,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;appropriate but needs modification,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;not appropriate.\u0026rdquo; Also, the experts could give their own suggestions for each item. Then, the importance of each item was rated quantitatively from 1 to 4, representing unimportant, moderately important, important, and very important respectively. Then, for each item, the number of experts who gave their opinion on that item as \u0026ldquo;appropriate\u0026rdquo; was divided by half of the total number of experts who gave their opinions on the item [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. The CVI for each item was determined by subtracting 1 from this ratio [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The responses from the experts were agreed upon and all were accepted after consultation among the research team. Items for which revision was recommended were revised. Some items were made more comprehensible without changing the meaning. Results showed an item evaluation of 0.75\u0026ndash;0.95, and a mean significance score of each item of 3.31-4.00. Acceptable content validity was defined as the average Scale-level Content Validity Index\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 and Item‐level Content Validity Index\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00 if the number of experts was five or less, and an Item‐level Content Validity Index\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.78 and an average Scale‐level Content Validity Index of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.9 if the number of experts was six or more [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. After that, the necessary adjustments were made, and the trial form with a total of 23 items was made ready for implementation. It is stated in the literature that before beginning to implement a measurement instrument, a pre-test should be conducted on a group of 30\u0026ndash;40 people to compare the source and target audience, and the responses should be evaluated and necessary corrections made [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. For this purpose, it was determined that according to the results of the pilot application conducted with 30 nursing students, the scale was one which the students could understand. The students who took part in the pilot application were not included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn validity and reliability studies, it is recommended that the sample size be at least 5\u0026ndash;10 times and at most 20 times the number of items in the scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. It was seen that the sample size in this study was in accordance with the literature. In order to determine the construct validity of the scale in the study, data was collected primarily through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) processes. In this first stage, 211 students were included in the study. This group of students formed a baseline sample group to examine the factor structure and item loadings of the initial items of the scale. Following the elimination of the items based on the EFA results and the creation of the final 21-item structure of the scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the structural validity of the tool in a more comprehensive manner. For this second stage, a wider group of participants was contacted, and data were obtained from 411 participants. Care was taken to ensure that the samples in both stages were representative of the cultural bullying tendencies of university students and the factors affecting these tendencies. The data so collected were used to comprehensively examine the psychometric properties of the scale and to analyze the relationships between university students\u0026rsquo; cultural bullying tendencies and demographic, socioeconomic, cultural interaction and personal belief or attitude characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected online using a web-based survey platform between May 31, 2025, and June 18, 2025. The link to the research form created on the online platform was sent to the students\u0026rsquo; official university e-mail addresses provided by the university. The survey instrument comprised three sections. The first section provided participants with detailed information about the purpose and scope of the study, explicitly highlighting the voluntary nature of participation, the assurance that responses would be used solely for research purposes, and the guarantee of confidentiality, with no disclosure of data to third parties or institutions. This section also included a mandatory informed consent item, presented as a binary \u0026ldquo;yes/no\u0026rdquo; option, to document participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to take part in the study. Only those who selected \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; were granted access to the subsequent sections of the survey. The second section contained the Socio-Demographic Data Collection Form, while the third section incorporated the Cultural Bullying Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstruments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA sociodemographic data form was created by the researcher to obtain demographic information about the students (demographic variables, family characteristics, cultural and social factors, religious and political views, etc.), and a draft form of the Cultural Bullying Scale consisting of 23 five-point Likert type items prepared by the researchers was used in order to develop the cultural bullying scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the statistical package program IBM SPSS Statistics 27 was used to analyze the data obtained, and IBM SPSS AMOS 22 was used for structural equation modeling. In order to examine the psychometric characteristics of the scale, first, explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. In this analysis, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy test and the Bartlett Sphericity Test. Factorization was performed using the Principal Component Analysis method and the variance rates explained by factor loadings were examined. Item factor loadings and potential overlap were carefully examined. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated for internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to confirm the structural validity of the scale more comprehensively. In CFA, the fit of the two-factor model to the data set was evaluated and interpreted through various fit indices (CMIN/df, CFI, TLI, NFI, GFI, AGFI, SRMR and RMSEA). Hierarchical Regression Analysis was applied to determine the variables that predict levels of cultural bullying. In this analysis, variables such as demographic variables, family characteristics, geographical region and native language, cultural and social factors, religious belief level and political views were gradually included in the model, and their explanatory power in cultural bullying variance was examined. The explanatory power (R\u0026sup2; and Adjusted R\u0026sup2;) and statistical significance (F value and p value) of each model were reported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eScale scoring\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the scale, developed to determine the attitudes of nursing students towards cultural bullying, a five-point Likert-type rating scale was used: \u0026ldquo;(1) strongly disagree\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;(2) disagree\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;(3) undecided\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;(4) agree\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;(5) strongly agree\u0026rdquo;. The scale had no cutoff point. The minimum score obtainable on the scale was 21, and the maximum was 105. A higher score on the scale indicated a higher level of bullying. There were no reverse-scored items on the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthics Approval\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e Ethics committee approval for the conduct of the research was obtained from Bursa Uludağ University Health Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Date: 30.04.2025, Number: 2025/04\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;02). The principles of the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to throughout the entire process of this study. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was secured from all participants, who were thoroughly informed about the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives, scope, and confidentiality measures. Participation was strictly voluntary.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eExamining the demographic distribution of the 411 participants included in the second part of the research process, it was seen that 85.4% were female. It can be said that there was a relatively more balanced distribution in year of study. The demographic distribution of the participants is given in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Participants\u0026rsquo; Demographic Characteristics (n and %)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYear of study\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e156\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e411\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe psychometric properties of the scale to be developed were first examined, and it was discussed whether a standardized measurement tool was possible with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Thus, the process was first started with the EFA process, and principal component analysis was performed. A detailed interpretation of the factor analysis and reliability analyses conducted during the development process of the Cultural Bullying Scale is presented below. These analyses were conducted to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the tool which was to be developed. The scale development process was begun with a 23-item scale, and was finalized with a 21-item structure following these analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrincipal Component Analysis (PCA) method was used to examine the construct validity of the scale. First, the factor structure of the 23-item version was examined, and in this examination, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy and Bartlett sphericity tests. The KMO value obtained was determined as .956, which showed that the data set was perfectly suitable for factor analysis. In addition, the statistical significance of the Bartlett Sphericity Test (χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9600.636; df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;253; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.000) confirmed that the correlation matrix between the variables was different from the identity matrix and was suitable for factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen the factor analysis results of the initial version of 23 items were examined, two factors with eigenvalues ​​above 1 were identified. These two factors explained 69.008% of the total variance. The first factor explained 55.868% of the total variance (41.051% in the rotated form), and the second factor explained 13.139% (27.957% in the rotated form). This showed that the tool could effectively explain the concept of cultural bullying in two main dimensions. At this stage, a careful examination the factor loads of the items and their possible overlap was started.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result of the factor loading analysis, it was determined that some items were loaded with close loadings (overlapping) on ​​more than one factor. In particular, it was determined that the loading differences between the two factors of items CB2 and CB21 were below .10. This was undesirable because it could not be clearly determined which factor the items belonged to more strongly, reducing the clarity of the factor structure. This overlapping required the removal of these two items from the tool in order to make the scale tidier and more understandable. In this way, the transition was made from the 23-item trial version to the 21-item final version (supplementary file pdf.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter removing the items, factor analysis was performed again for the final 21-item version. At this stage, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was tested again. The KMO sampling adequacy value was determined as .955, which showed that the data set has a very high suitability for factor analysis. The statistical significance of the Bartlett Sphericity Test (χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8877.503; df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;210; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.000) once again confirmed the suitability of the remaining items for factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor analysis results of the final 21-item version again indicated a two-factor structure. These two factors explained 70.827% of the total variance. The first factor explained 56.602% of the total variance (42.862% in the rotated form), and the second factor explained 14.225% (27.965% in the rotated form). When the factor loadings of the items were examined, it was seen that each item loaded highly and clearly on a single factor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe two dimensions that emerged as a result of the factor analysis were named in accordance with the contents of the scale items. The first factor (F1: items 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23) was named Open Cultural Bullying and Aggression because it represents direct and active hostility, humiliation and aggressive behavior towards different cultures. The second factor (F2: items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12) was named Cultural Discrimination and Prejudice because it reflects avoiding interaction with different cultures, keeping social distance, seeing one\u0026rsquo;s own culture as superior, and having prejudiced attitudes. These names clearly indicate the specific cultural dimensions of bullying that each factor measures. In this way, the cultural bullying scale was developed as a valid and reliable measurement tool with two dimensions and 21 items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated. For the 23-item initial version, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha coefficient was calculated as .954, while it was found to be .949 for the 21-item final version. Both values showed that the internal consistency of the scale was at an excellent level. Such a high reliability coefficient revealed that the scale items consistently measured the same construct and that the scale was highly reliable. Therefore, it was felt unnecessary to examine the reliability coefficient of each item separately.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA scale reliability coefficient of above .95 is questioned in the literature, and it is stated that it may not be desirable in some cases. Very high Cronbach's Alpha values ​​may indicate that there is excessive repetition among the items in the scale or that there may be an unnecessarily large number of similar items. This may narrow the scope of the structure measured by the scale, and by removing some of the items, it may be possible to shorten the scale and increase its applicability. However, the values ​​in the current tool remained at a balanced level that minimized the negative effects that an excessively high level can bring, while maintaining excellent internal consistency. The Principal Components Analysis table is given in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal Variance Explained by the Factors (Principal Components Analysis)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScale version\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKMO\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBartlett\u0026rsquo;s χ2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23-item version\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.956\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9600.636\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21-item final version\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.955\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8877.503\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eComponent\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInitial Eigenvalue\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRotated Variance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCumulative (Rotated)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInitial Eigenvalue\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRotated Variance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCumulative (Rotated)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.051\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.051\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.887\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.862\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.862\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.957\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69.008\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.987\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.965\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.827\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e23-item version\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e21-item final version\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem No\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.718\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.708\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~~CB2~~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~~.459~~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~~.550~~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.775\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.767\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.702\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.721\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.793\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.798\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.619\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.505\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.624\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.504\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.768\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.752\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.751\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.803\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.686\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.692\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.463\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.679\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.686\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.762\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.413\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.766\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.815\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.817\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.848\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.849\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.872\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.929\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.917\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.918\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.834\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.835\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.928\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.929\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~~CB21~~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~~.531~~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~~.491~~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.834\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.835\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCB23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.954\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.949\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the EFA and reliability assessments, CFA was performed to confirm the structural validity of the tool more comprehensively. CFA results showed that the two-factor model was generally a good fit for the data set. Among the goodness of fit indices, the CMIN/df value was determined as 0.72 and the CFI (Comparative Fit Index) value was determined as .931, meeting the threshold value of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90, which is the acceptable fit criterion. Similarly, the TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) value was calculated as .913, the NFI (Normalized Fit Index) value as .914 and the GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) value as .911, all of which confirm an acceptable level of fit. The AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index) value was determined as .853, which meets the acceptable fit criterion of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.85. The RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value was obtained as .079, indicating acceptable fit (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.08). Finally, the SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Error) value was determined as .0455. This value is below the threshold of \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.08, which is the good fit criterion. This point clearly demonstrates that the two-factor structure is strongly consistent with the data collected. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the fit indices of the two-factor structure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFit Indices of the Two-Factor Structure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFit index\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eValue obtained\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCMIN/df\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCFI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e.931\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5.00\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTLI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.913\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNFI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.914\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGFI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.911\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAGFI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.853\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.85\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSRMR\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.0455\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.08\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Good fit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRMSEA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.079\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.08\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acceptable (marginal fit)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the standardized path diagram of the two-factor CFA model for the Cultural Bullying Scale. This diagram shows the relationships between the previously identified factors Obvious Cultural Bullying and Aggression (F1) and Cultural Discrimination and Prejudice (F2) and the observed items comprising these factors (CB1 - CB23). The one-way arrows extending from the factors to the items represent the factor loadings, and these values ​​reflect how well the items represent the relevant factors. It can be seen that all factor loadings are high and statistically significant. This proves that the items strongly represent the factors to which they belong. For example, the loadings of the items relating to F1 vary between .74 and .93, while the loadings of the items relating to F2 vary between .62 and .84. The two-way arrow between the factors shows the correlation between F1 and F2, and this correlation was determined to be .64. This suggests that the two dimensions are related but distinct constructs. The small circles marked with \"e\" around the items represent the error variances. These values ​​include the part of the items that cannot be explained by the factors and the measurement errors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis CFA and the high model fit indices obtained prove that the theoretically predicted two-factor structure of the cultural bullying scale is confirmed by experimental data. Examination of factor loadings and error variances reveals that the items make a strong contribution to the overall structure of the scale. In the light of this validity and reliability evidence, the cultural bullying scale, with two dimensions and 21 items, is accepted as a valid and reliable measurement tool which has been added to the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted to determine the variables that predict cultural bullying levels provide important findings regarding the multidimensional nature of the issue. This analytical approach allows us to progressively evaluate the explanatory power of different categories of predictor variables on cultural bullying. Each model examines the increase in cultural bullying variance by adding a specific set of new variables to the previous model. This method makes it easier to understand the effects which variables show alone and the complex relationships they exhibit in combination with other factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the first stage of the analysis, demographic variables predicting cultural bullying were included in the model (Model 1). This model explains a statistically significant portion of the variance in cultural bullying. The explanatory power of the adjusted model was found to be 2.3% (Adjusted R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.023). The general statistical significance of the model was found to be at a high level (F (5.405)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.96, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). When demographic predictors were examined in detail, it was determined that second year students (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.848, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and third year students (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.737, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) had significantly higher cultural bullying scores compared to first year students. This indicates that cultural bullying tendencies may increase in the later stages of the academic process. Another finding, regarding the marital status variable, shows that the cultural bullying scores of married participants were statistically significantly lower than those of single participants (β = -12.385, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Other demographic factors such as age and gender were found not to significantly predict cultural bullying in Model 1. This suggests that an individual\u0026rsquo;s basic demographic characteristics have certain influences on cultural attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the second stage (Model 2), in addition to the demographic variables in Model 1, the variables of family characteristics (mother\u0026rsquo;s and father\u0026rsquo;s education level, family income status), geographical region and mother tongue were included in the model. It is observed that this model explains a larger and statistically significant portion of the cultural bullying variance (R\u0026sup2; = 0.148). The adjusted explanatory power of the model has increased to 10.0% (Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.100).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe general statistical significance of the model was found to be at a very high level (F (22.388)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.07, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The demographic variable, where the cultural bullying scores of the second year (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.077, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and third year (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.738, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) students were significantly higher than those of the first year students, was also preserved in this model. This suggests that year of study is a consistent predictor of cultural bullying. In the analysis of family characteristics, it was found that the cultural bullying scores of the participants whose mothers were illiterate were statistically significantly lower than those of the group whose mothers were primary school graduates (β = -9.852, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This suggests that parental education level has a complex mechanism of influence on cultural attitudes. It was determined that other variables of family, geographic region and native language did not significantly predict cultural bullying in Model 2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the third stage (Model 3), cultural and social factors (experience abroad, level of foreign language proficiency, density of foreigners in the region, personal attitude towards cultural diversity and participation in social responsibility projects) were included in the model in addition to the variables in Model 2. This model was found to explain a much higher and statistically significant portion of the cultural bullying variance compared to previous models (R\u0026sup2; = 0.358). The adjusted explanatory power of the model reached 29.4% (Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.294). The overall statistical significance of the model was also determined to be very high (F (37.373)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.62, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). At this stage, it was observed that some demographic variables (e.g. marital status, second year) that were significant in previous models lost their statistical significance in this model. This suggests that newly added cultural and social factors mask these demographic effects or are stronger predictors. In the analysis of father\u0026rsquo;s education level, it was determined that the cultural bullying scores of the participants whose fathers were high school (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.772, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) or university (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.533, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) graduates were significantly higher than those of the group whose fathers were primary school graduates. This finding suggests that paternal education level is positively associated with cultural bullying, even when other variables are controlled. It was determined that the presence of many foreigners in the area of residence (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.723, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) significantly predicted cultural bullying. More importantly, it was observed that having \u0026ldquo;Neutral\u0026rdquo; (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.081, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) or \u0026ldquo;Against\u0026rdquo; (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.406, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) attitudes towards cultural diversity predicted cultural bullying statistically significantly and quite strongly compared to the reference group with \u0026ldquo;Positive\u0026rdquo; attitudes. Participation in social responsibility projects was also found to significantly predict cultural bullying (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.867, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). This clearly demonstrates that cultural interactions and attitudes have a direct and strong impact on cultural bullying.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the final stage (Model 4), in addition to all variables in Model 3, the variables of religious belief level and political view were included in the model. This final model explained the largest and most statistically significant portion of the variance in cultural bullying (R\u0026sup2; = 0.403). The adjusted explanatory power of the model was determined to be 33.3% (Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.333). The overall statistical significance of the model was also found to be very high (F (43.367)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.77, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Here, the explanatory power of the model exceeds 40%. Among the demographic variables, only the cultural bullying scores of third year students were significantly higher than those of first year students, and this was retained in this model (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.081, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Regarding family characteristics, it was determined that the scores of the participants whose mothers were iIliterate were significantly lower (β = -8.520, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and the scores of the participants whose fathers were high school (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.439, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) or university graduates (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.503, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) were significantly higher. This model also continues to show that the presence of many foreigners in the region (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.036, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and the attitudes of \u0026ldquo;Undecided\u0026rdquo; (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.030, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) or \u0026ldquo;Against\u0026rdquo; (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.966, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) towards cultural diversity significantly and strongly predict cultural bullying. Participation in social responsibility projects also continues to significantly predict cultural bullying (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.423, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). It was found that the added variables of religious belief and political view did not predict cultural bullying at a statistically significant level when all other variables were controlled. This finding suggests that the influence of religious and political views is absorbed by broader cultural and social factors, such as general attitudes toward cultural diversity, or plays an indirect role.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the hierarchical regression analysis clearly show that the strongest and most consistent variables in predicting cultural bullying are personal attitudes towards cultural diversity. Especially, the attitude of \u0026ldquo;I am against\u0026rdquo; increases the level of cultural bullying very strongly. It was determined that the density of foreigners in the area of residence is also an important predictor. Demographic and family characteristics such as year of study and parental education level were also observed to be associated with cultural bullying tendencies. These findings suggest that cultural bullying is a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by both personal attitudes and environmental and socioeconomic factors. Hierarchical regression analysis of variables predicting cultural bullying is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHierarchical Regression Analysis of Variables Predicting Cultural Bullying\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable/Category\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic Variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender (Ref: Male)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Female\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.866 (0.591)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.782 (0.100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.658 (0.087)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.886 (0.236)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear of study (Ref: 1st year)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2nd year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.848\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.044)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.077\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.031)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.224 (0.101)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.179 (0.105)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3rd year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.737\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (0.009)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.738\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (0.011)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.571 (0.091)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.081\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.043)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarital status (Ref: Single)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Married\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-12.385\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.020)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-11.754\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.024)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-6.084 (0.206)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.362 (0.619)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.013 (0.956)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.006 (0.980)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.006 (0.979)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.020 (0.927)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFamily Characteristics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMother\u0026rsquo;s education (Ref: Primary school)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- High school\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.014 (0.993)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.732 (0.628)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.462 (0.759)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Literate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.465 (0.837)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.733 (0.737)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.511 (0.812)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Illiterate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-9.852\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-7.724\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (0.004)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-8.520\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- University\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.317 (0.455)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.767 (0.633)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.195 (0.904)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFather\u0026rsquo;s education (Ref: Primary school)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- High school\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.540 (0.057)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.772\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.024)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.439\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.042)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Literate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.674 (0.197)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.298 (0.060)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.217 (0.056)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Illiterate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.396 (0.950)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.592 (0.529)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.328 (0.676)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- University\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.720 (0.093)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.533\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.019)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.503\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.017)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily income (Ref: Income\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Expenditure)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Income\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;Expenditure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.569 (0.814)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.657 (0.770)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.451 (0.837)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Income\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Expenditure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.541 (0.064)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.503 (0.163)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.316 (0.186)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeographical area (Ref: Mediterranean)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- East Anatolia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.704 (0.827)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.262 (0.672)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.321 (0.430)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aegean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.687 (0.238)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.835 (0.514)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.130 (0.963)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- SE Anatolia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-4.259 (0.227)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.371 (0.463)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.932 (0.769)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Central Anatolia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.951 (0.761)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.467 (0.869)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.656 (0.813)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Black Sea\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.270 (0.515)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.998 (0.337)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.086 (0.312)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Marmara\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.337 (0.632)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.886 (0.460)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.036 (0.228)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMother tongue (Ref: Other)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Turkish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.005 (0.998)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.903 (0.385)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.824 (0.190)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCultural and Social Factors\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverseas experience (Ref: Yes)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.521 (0.362)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.781 (0.277)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge of foreign language (Ref: Good)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Poor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.923 (0.352)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.846 (0.679)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Fair\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.820 (0.151)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.838 (0.141)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArea of residence (Ref: Few foreigners)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Many foreigners\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.723\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (0.003)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.036\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (0.006)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAttitude to cultural diversity (Ref: Positive)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Undecided\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.081\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.030\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Against\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.406\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.966\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial responsibility projects (Ref: I participate)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.867\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.020)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.423\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e (0.048)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReligious and political views\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReligious belief (Ref: Low)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Medium\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.342 (0.621)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- High\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.932 (0.175)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitical views (Ref: Right)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Extreme left\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.205 (0.421)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Liberal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.620 (0.394)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Moderate right\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.649 (0.253)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Moderate left\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.328 (0.295)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eModel Statistics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.358\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.403\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.294\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF (df)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(5.405)\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(22.388)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(37.373)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(43.367)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep (Model)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.012\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eNurses equipped with cultural sensitivity and cultural competence skills in multicultural settings can reduce the negative consequences of cultural bullying by promoting respect and inclusivity within the team and can contribute to a more equitable, safe and effective healthcare delivery [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Nurses\u0026rsquo; mastery of the issue of cultural bullying directly affects the quality of health services provided in multicultural societies. Therefore, it is critical for nurses to develop the ability to recognize, prevent and manage cultural bullying in both professional and holistic care [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Also, nursing students, who are important healthcare service providers, shoulder important roles in multicultural structures that take in cultural differences. It has been noted in the literature that no valid and reliable measurement tool has been developed to determine the level of cultural bullying among nursing students. As a result of this study, it was found that the Cultural Bullying Scale is a reliable and valid measurement tool for assessing the level of cultural bullying among nursing students who are part of the healthcare team in countries with a high level of cultural diversity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step in scale development work was to examine the studies in the literature. In examining the content validity of the Cultural Bullying Scale, a method based on expert opinion was followed. Articles that were suggested for editing were reorganized and made more understandable. First, the factor structure of the 23-item version was examined. The KMO value obtained was .956, and the result of the Bartlett test applied to determine the sampling adequacy was found to be χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9600.636; df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;253; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. In this way, it was determined that the data were suitable for EFA and the sample size of the scale was quite sufficient. This result was found to be consistent with the literature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result of the factor loading analysis conducted in the study, it was determined that the loading differences between the two factors of the items CB2 and CB21 of the Cultural Bullying Scale were below .10. This overlap resulted in the removal of these two items from the tool in order to make the scale more understandable, and the scale changed from a 23-item trial version to the final version of 21 items. As a result of the study, it was determined that the final 21-item Cultural Bullying Scale consisted of two factors and explained 70.827% of the total variance. Additionally, the scale item loadings were found to be .463-.930. The first factor (F1) was named Open Cultural Bullying and Aggression because it represents direct and active hostility, humiliation, and aggressive behavior toward people of different cultures. The second factor (F2) is named Cultural Discrimination and Prejudice because it reflects avoiding interaction with different cultures, keeping social distance, seeing one\u0026rsquo;s own culture as superior, and having prejudiced attitudes. These designations clearly articulate the specific dimensions of cultural bullying that each factor measures. Consequently, the cultural bullying scale was developed as a valid and reliable two-dimensional, 21-item measurement tool.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result of the study, according to the internal consistency reliability results of the Cultural Bullying scale, the Cronbach alpha value of the total scale was found to be 0.949. It is reported in the literature that scale (level/construct) Cronbach alpha values ​​higher than 0.80 represent ideal internal consistency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, this result shows that the internal consistency of the Cultural Bullying Scale is excellent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, CFA was conducted to confirm the structural validity of the Cultural Bullying Scale in a more comprehensive manner. For CFA analysis, CMIN/df, GFI, AGFI, CFI, RMSEA and SRMR fit indices are recommended [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. CFI, AGFI, GFI values ​​between 0.95 and 1.00 indicate excellent fit, while RMSEA values ​​between 0.05 and 0.08 indicate acceptable fit [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. The fit index values ​​of the Cultural Bullying Scale were found to be CMIN/df 0.72, GFI 0.911, AGFI 0.853, CFI 0.931, TLI 0.913, NFI 0.914, RMSEA 0.079 and SRMR 0.0455. When the results were examined, it was seen from the CFA results that the two-factor model showed a good overall fit to the data set. Thus, the results of the CFA support the construct validity of the scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. In a scale study conducted by Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Hidalgo et al. to determine cultural bullying in adolescents, the fit index values ​​were found to be χ2/SD 10320.64, RMSEA .077, SRMR .06, CFI .96, and NFI .95 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. In another study by Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Hidalgo et al. on cultural bullying scale fit among adolescents in Latin America, χ2/SD was found to be 3075.286, NNFI .726, CFI .768, RMSEA .073, and SRMR .078 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. The results are seen to be similar. From the findings obtained, it is seen that all index values ​​of the Cultural Bullying Scale are between normal and acceptable values, the scale exhibits good fit and its structural validity is appropriate, there is significance between the items and factors, and therefore this scale is suitable for measuring the cultural bullying level of nursing students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe item-total correlation coefficient is determined by examining the relationship between the scores obtained from the scale items and the scores obtained from the scale as a whole. This analysis is performed to determine whether the items can exemplify similar behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. While the loadings of the items belonging to Factor 1 range from .74 to .93, the loadings of the items belonging to Factor 2 range from .62 to .84. This suggests that the two dimensions are related but separate constructs. The acceptable level of item-total correlation coefficients of the Cultural Bullying scale indicates that the scale items measure similar constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted in this study clearly showed that the strongest and most consistent variables in predicting cultural bullying were personal attitudes towards cultural diversity. It has been observed that the density of foreigners in the area of ​​residence is also an important predictor, and demographic and family characteristics such as year of study and parental education level are also related to cultural bullying tendencies. This shows that cultural bullying is a multidimensional phenomenon and is influenced by both personal attitudes and environmental and socioeconomic factors. According to previous research, it has been explained that cultural bullying can occur frequently in societies where ethnic or cultural pluralism is high [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition, some studies indicate that family structure has a significant effect on cultural bullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. These results support our study findings. The study found that third and second-year students had significantly higher cultural bullying scores than first-year students. This suggests that cultural bullying tendencies may increase in the later stages of the academic process. Also, while our study found that gender did not significantly predict cultural bullying, some studies in the literature found that it did [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. It was thought that this was due to the fact that the study was conducted in countries with different cultures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strengths of this study are that it provides a valid and reliable tool which was developed to determine the level of cultural bullying among nursing students who are healthcare providers in countries such as Turkey which have a high level of cultural diversity. The study also has a number of limitations. Conducting the research at a single university and using the convenience sampling method may affect the generalizability of the research. There may also be some bias, and the fact that all of the survey questions are based on nursing students\u0026rsquo; own statements may affect the bias of the study. However, in order to reduce bias, we envisioned a 20% sample attrition rate and strictly controlled the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the sample. Students were also asked to fill out the surveys anonymously to reduce information bias. Considering ll these limitations, there is a need for further studies with larger samples and involving nursing students from different cultures, and also the development of scales in different languages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs a result of this research, it was determined that the Cultural Bullying Scale was a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the cultural bullying level of nursing students. This scale can help determine the level of cultural bullying among nursing students who are healthcare providers in countries such as T\u0026uuml;rkiye which have significant immigration and cultural diversity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eCDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCB: Cultural Bullying\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eEthics committee approval for the conduct of the research was obtained from Bursa Uludağ University Health Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Date: 30.04.2025, Number: 2025/04-02). The principles of the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to throughout the entire process of this study. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was secured from all participants, who were thoroughly informed about the study’s objectives, scope, and confidentiality measures. Participation was strictly voluntary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll authors contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. CYK and DY made significant contributions to the study design, sampling, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation. CYK and DY participated in drafting and critically revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors would like to thank all the students who participated in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCDC. Bullying|Youth Violence Prevention.; 2025. https://search.cdc.gov/search/?query=bullying\u0026amp;dpage=1 (Accessed: 12 July 2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei X, Cheung HN, Williams JM, Chan SWY. The role of perfectionism in bullying: A cross-gender and cultural network analysis. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2024;95:2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2024.101723\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen X, Wang L, Wang Y. Experiences of bullying and victimization and adolescents\u0026rsquo; life satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2024;76:2-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101930\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO. New SDG 4 Data on Bullying.; 2018. https://uis.unesco.org/en/news/new-sdg-4-data-bullying\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaffney H, Ttofi MM, Farringon DP. What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. J Sch Psychol. 2021;85:37-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.12.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin H, Han Z, Li Y. Traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and quality of life among adolescents in 35 countries: Do cultural values matter? Soc Sci Med. 2024;340:2-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116499\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe Y, Xie G, Xie GD, et al. Bidirectional associations among school bullying, depressive symptoms and sleep problems in adolescents: A cross-lagged longitudinal approach. J Affect Disord. 2022;298:590-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.038\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHikmat R, Yosep I, Hernawaty T, Mardhiyah A. A Scoping Review of Anti-Bullying Interventions: Reducing Traumatic Effect of Bullying Among Adolescents. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024;17:289-304. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S443841\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong D. Cultural Anthropology is Signed by the Concept of Culture Itself. Journal of Anthropology Reports. 2023;6:1-2. https://doi.org/10.35248/2684-1304.23.6.179\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHua J, Kondo A, Moross J. Enhancing intercultural sensitivity in Japanese nursing students through international online nursing courses: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;128:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105870\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBilgi\u0026ccedil; Ş, Şahin İ. Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism Levels of Nursing Students. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Health Science. 2019;10:230-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkca A, Ayaz-Alkaya S. Determinants of attitudes towards refugees and intercultural sensitivity of nursing students: A descriptive and correlational study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;124:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105772\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zdemir S, Sevin\u0026ccedil; S. Correlation between cultural competence, xenophobia, and attitudes towards brain drain in nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;131:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105963\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMert Karadaş M, Bilgin A, Uslu Sahan F, \u0026Ouml;zdemir L. Determining the predictors of nursing students\u0026rsquo; xenophobic tendency toward refugees. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;122:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105722\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerwijs C, Russo D. The Double-Edged Sword of Diversity: How Diversity, Conflict, and Psychological Safety Impact Software Teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2024;50:141-57. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2023.3339881\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSrivastava N, Awasthi P. Acculturation and Social Identity of Refugees and Students in New Society: A Psychological Analysis. Article in International Journal of Research in Social Sciences. 2019;9:313-22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378341591\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMete M. Social Identity Theory and the Process of Othering Immigrant Identity: A Psychopolitical Analysis on Stereotyping. Journal of Academic Inquiries. 2023;18:470-89. https://doi.org/10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1323189\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Hidalgo AJ, Calmaestra J, Casas, J.A., Ortega-Ruiz, R. Ethnic-Cultural Bullying Versus Personal Bullying: Specificity and Measurement of Discriminatory Aggression and Victimization Among Adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:1-12. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCardoso JB, Szlyk HS, Goldbach J, Swank P, Zvolensky MJ. General and ethnic-biased bullying among latino students: Exploring risks of depression, suicidal ideation, and substance use. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;20:816\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0593-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaravita SC, Stefanelli S, Mazzone A, Cadei L, Thornberg R, Ambrosini B. When the bullied peer is native-born vs. immigrant: A mixed-method study with a sample of native-born and immigrant adolescents. Scand J Psychol. 2020;6:97-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12565\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePirhofer J, B\u0026uuml;kki J, Vaismoradi M, Glarcher M, Paal P. A qualitative exploration of cultural safety in nursing from the perspectives of Advanced Practice Nurses: meaning, barriers, and prospects. BMC Nurs. 2022;21:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00960-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkaria R, Montayre J. Cultural intelligence and intercultural effectiveness among nurse educators: A mixed-method study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;121:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105714\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoşkun Er\u0026ccedil;elik H, \u0026Ccedil;amlica T, \u0026Ouml;zkan A. An Evaluation of Turkish Nurses\u0026rsquo; Cultural Intelligence Levels and Intercultural Communication Apprehension. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2022;33:550-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10436596221086600\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu Q, Qin Z, Zhan M, Wu B, Chen Z, Xu T. Development of a trigger tool for the detection of adverse drug events in Chinese geriatric inpatients using the Delphi method. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41:1174-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00871-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu J, Fallacaro MD, Jiang L, et al. IFNA approved Chinese anaesthesia nurse education program: A Delphi method. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu Y, Zhan YC, Zhu JM, et al. The development and psychometric validation of a Chinese empathy motivation scale. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:2599-2612. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14846\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEsin MN. Research Process Application and Critique in Nursing. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN, eds. Data collection methods and tools \u0026amp; Reliability and validity of data collection methods and tools. 4nd ed. İstanbul: Nobel Medicine Publishing; 2020, p. 216-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026uuml;y\u0026uuml;k\u0026ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk Ş. Data Analysis Handbook. 23rd ed. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing; 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various \u0026chi;2 approximations. J Royal Statis Soci Ser B. 1954;16:296-8. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang X, Qi W, Chan S, Shi Z. Development and psychometric evaluation of a Chinese version of auditory hallucination risk assessment scale in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29:3414-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15379\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu ML. Wen juan tong ji fen xi shi wu: SPSS cao zuo yu ying yong [Questionnaire statistical analysis practice: SPSS operation and application]. Chongqing: Chongqing University Publishing House, 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStreiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scale. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarrett P. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personal Individual Differ. 2007;42:815-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTa\u0026rsquo;an WAF, Rababah JA, Al-Hammouri MM, Yousef J, Mukattash TL, Williams B. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the six-dimension scale of nursing performance-arabic version. BMC Nurs. 2024;23:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01740-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair JF Jr, Hult GT, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications; 2016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc Equ Mod: A Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6:1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Hidalgo AJ, Pantale\u0026oacute;n Y, Ortega-Ruiz R, Herrera-L\u0026oacute;pez YM. Ethnic-cultural bullying among adolescents in multicultural environments: A study in Latin America. Int J Intercultural Relat. 2025;107:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102196\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBozkurt FD, \u0026Ouml;zdemir S. Validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the human papillomavirus knowledge scale: a methodological study. J Turkish German Gynec Assoc. 2023;24:177. https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2022-10-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayram S, Sun S, Korol L, Ozdemir M, Stattin H. Adolescents\u0026rsquo; engagement in ethnic harassment: Prejudiced beliefs in social networks and classroom ethnic diversity. J Youth Adolesc. 2018;47:1151-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0795-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVitoroulis I, Vaillancourt T. Ethnic group differences in bullying perpetration: A meta-analysis. J Rese Adolesc. 2018;28:752-71. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jora.12393\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu M, Macrynikola N, Waseem M, Miranda R. Racial and ethnic differences in bullying: Review and implications for intervention. Aggress Violent Behavior. 2020;50:101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101340\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChu X, Chen Z. The associations between parenting and bullying among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Youth Adolesc. 2025;54:928-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02108-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorgiou SN, Ioannou M, Stavrinides P. Cultural values as mediators between parenting styles and bullying behavior at school. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2018;21:27-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9413-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLucas S, Jernbro C, Tindberg Y, Janson S. Bully, bullied and abused. Associations between violence at home and bullying in childhood. Scandinavian J Public Healt. 2016;44:27-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815610238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerrera-L\u0026acute;opez M, Romera E, Ortega-Ruiz R. Bullying y cyberbullying en Colombia; coocurrencia en adolescentes escolarizados. Revista Latinoamericana Déle Psicolog. 2017;49:163-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2016.08.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Bullying, culture, scale, nursing, students","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7693573/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7693573/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural bullying, which encompasses discriminatory, exclusionary, and aggressive behaviors directed at individuals\u0026rsquo; ethnic origin, language, beliefs, or cultural identity, constitutes a significant public health risk factor. At this point, the awareness of nurses, who constitute an essential part of healthcare services, regarding cultural bullying is of critical importance. Recognizing cultural bullying among nursing students is considered an academic and professional necessity in terms of developing cultural sensitivity, supporting equitable learning environments, and improving the quality of education and professional care. This study was conducted with the purpose of developing a scale to determine the level of cultural bullying in nursing students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe population of this methodological type of research consisted of the first, second and third year nursing students of the Health Sciences Faculty of a state university in T\u0026uuml;rkiye who were registered in the school in the same semester and were currently attending classes. A socio-demographic data form and the Cultural Bullying Scale draft form, consisting of 23 items prepared in five-way Likert-type format, were used to collect research data. The construct validity of the scale was evaluated with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and its internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient. Also, Hierarchical Regression Analysis was performed in order to determine the variables reflecting the levels of cultural bullying.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result of factor loading analysis, the scale was converted to its final form of 21 items by removing two items that showed overlap. The results of the factor analysis of the final 21-item version indicated a two-factor structure. These two factors explained 70.827% of total variance. The first factor explained 56.602% of total variance, and the second factor explained 14.225%. Examining the factor loads of the items, it was seen that each item loaded highly and clearly on a single factor. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.949.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Cultural Bullying Scale which was developed was found to be a reliable and valid scale instrument to measure to level of cultural bullying in nursing students.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and Validity-Reliability Analysis of the Cultural Bullying Scale: A Methodological Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-15 17:46:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7693573/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b0db8d9d-c5e6-42cd-bd2f-20048a1932e5","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-04T23:54:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-15 17:46:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7693573","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7693573","identity":"rs-7693573","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}