|
چکیده
|
Debate is one of the most important topics in the field of communication. From politics to educational settings, debate is increasingly being used. With all studies done on the topic, few, if any, reliable, valid, comprehensive, and universal scales have been developed so far to assess the type and quality of debate from multidisciplinary perspectives. The purpose of this study was then to fill the identified gap by examining the underlying structure and psychometric properties of a Multidisciplinary Debate Scale. In so doing, by comprehensively reviewing the existing literature, theories, and frameworks, a model of a multidisciplinary debate scale with 4 main constructs, 15 sub-constructs, and 57 items was developed. The four main constructs of the scale encompass Introduction and Presentation, Representation and Justification, Argument and Counterargument, and Final remarks. The participants of the study were 340 academics and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The reliability and validity of the designed questionnaire were confirmed. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and reliability estimates were conducted by SPSS software version 27. To analyze the paths through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), the Amos software version 26 was used. The results of EFA, CFA and SEM analyses of the tentative model confirmed the four proposed constructs and their relationships. The model fit indices (χ²/df < 5; RMSEA ≤0.05; GFI >0.9; AGFI >0.850; NFI >0.90; CFI >0.90; IFI >0.90) indicated the existence of strong connections among the constructs and sub-constructs, and supported the proposed model. The findings obtained from the study have practical implications for researchers and practitioners in the related fields. This debate scale can be used in various disciplines, contexts, and for different purposes.
|