Translation, Adaptation, and Validation of the Inner Peace Scale (IPS) to the Turkish Language

Full Text

 Many sources are used to maintain psychological well-being in the face of adverse events. Research on these sources has increased over the last century in order to protect mental health against adverse events such as nuclear bombs, genocide, and modern wars (Harris, 2004). When considering the epidemic diseases, economic crises, and climatic problems encountered in the current century, strengthening resources that will contribute to maintaining indivuals’ psychological well-being can be said to be essential. As one of these sources, peace is a personalized lifestyle that includes behavioral and cognitive components associated with feeling calm and trouble-free (Floody, 2014). 

According to García-Jimenez et al. (2014), peace means feeling a sense of meaning, experiencing inner peace, and assessing the purpose of life, regardless of religious beliefs. As a component of peace, inner peace is a feeling of calmness, inner balance, and harmony (Mitchell, 1988). Inner peace has the basic building blocks of love, awareness, and compassion (Davis & Thompson, 2013) and encourages individuals to develop a more flexible perspective toward life and time as well as helps people reduce negative cognition and increase positive emotions (Ge et al., 2020). In Buddhism, inner peace is essential in people’s lives (Liu et al., 2015), while in Taoist practice, achieving inner peace has been stated as the ultimate intention (Lee et al., 2013). When looking at inner peace from an existential perspective, the most effective way to handle death can be said to be living a satisfying and meaningful life; in other words, it means living a good life and dying with inner peace rather than dealing defensively with the looming threat of death by denying it (Van Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2020). 

Because inner peace is a desirable state of natural human tendency, attaining inner peace has become the ambition of both religious and non-religious people (Keskin, 2016). According to Canada et al. (2008), the feeling of inner peace helps individuals endure and cope with the challenges and troubling life events they face. Without inner peace, people experience constant dissatisfaction; they search for, long for, and desire something more significant, more impressive, faster, and more spectacular (Wapner, 2013). 

Realizing the inability to feed the self with material goods facilitates finding inner peace (Wapner, 2013). To maintain inner peace, one must consciously focus on the positive and disconnect from everything that creates bad inner feelings (Noe, 2018). However, remembering that focusing on inner peace does not stop one from pursuing goals or from having the ambition to do great things is essential (Savel & Munro, 2017). Individuals’ ability to attain salvation through inner peace is also thought to be able to contribute to solving social problems (Alexander, 2000). This is because individuals’ inner peace supports global harmony and reduces stress levels (Jacobs, 2014). Because inner peace assumes all life to be fundamentally interconnected, it also influences the broader world through one’s inner explorations, words, relationships, growth, and behavior (Hansen, 2016). 

Research has shown inner peace to possibly be associated with numerous variables. Cordaro et al. (2021) concluded a significant and positive relationship to exist between inner peace and the Five Great personality traits other than neuroticism. The results of their research additionally showed inner peace to be positively equated with unconditional self-acceptance and to have a negative relationship with depression, anxiety, and stress. Han et al.’s (2015) research concluded the Tam An [Inner peace] project, which aimed to improve individuals’ inner peace, to have been effective at raising awareness of refugees’ mental health in Vietnam and reducing labelling toward them. Ge et al.’s (2020) research concluded a positive relationship to exist between conscious awareness and inner peace. In particular, inner peace was concluded to have a mediating role in the negative effect of conscious awareness on the negative perception of experiences. Meanwhile, Mistur et al. (2022) examined the impact of a program individuals had developed for coping with COVID-19 and its traumatic effects with regard to how it improved awareness of their inner spiritual lives during the COVID-19 period. According to the research results, the program participants discovered as their inner peace increased that they had gained new inner sources of self-compassion, guidance, and peace through their deepened connections with their higher selves and higher powers (Mistur et al., 2022). 

Measuring people’s levels of inner peace is thought to be crucial, given the association between inner peace and several variables. The literature shows many scales to be found measuring the level of peace that individuals feel. These scales include the PEACE Scale developed by Zucker et al. (2014) that has individuals rate their own peace levels, the Peace Scale developed by Demirci and Ekşi (2017), the Childhood Happiness/Peace Memories Scale (Akın et al., 2013) that evaluates happy and peaceful memories of childhood years, and the Family Peace Scale (Özdemir & Bakiler, 2021) that measures families’ peace levels. The Inner Peace Scale (IPS; Xi & Lee, 2021) is the only scale found in the literature to measure individuals’ inner peace. Introducing this scale into Turkish is thought to likely contribute to studies in the mental health field. The current study aims to adapt the IPS to Turkish, perform its validity and reliability tests on a Turkish sample, and examine its psychometric properties with the idea that individuals will be able to contribute to future studies carried out on the concept of inner peace and its effects on mental health. 

Method 

Participants 

Our sample consists of university students living in Konya. The sample is composed of 291 people, of whom 233 are women (80%), and 58 are men (20%). The participants’ ages range from 18-35, with the overall mean age being 21.02 (SD = 2.17). 

Translating the Instrument 

The adaptation of the IPS into Turkish was carried out gradually in accordance with the literature (e.g., Eremenco et al., 2005; van Widenfelt et al., 2005). The first and second authors of the current article are fluent in both Turkish and English, and they first applied the translation independently. Next, the authors reached consensus by comparing their translations, after which the scale items were translated back into English by a foreign language expert and the translations were compared. Lastly, a guidance and psychological counseling specialist who’d completed his postgraduate education in the USA and is fluent in both languages reviewed all the items in Turkish and English and investigated the semantic differences. 

Procedures 

Firstly, permission was obtained for adapting the scale into Turkish by contacting the authors of the original scale by email, after which ethics committee approval was obtained. An online questionnaire was created by transferring the Turkish version of the IPS to electronic media. Informed consent was obtained electronically from the participants before they 

filled out the scale items. No personal information was requested from the participants. The scale was distributed through an online data collection platform. In addition, potential participants were asked to share the study link with others. At the end of the one-week data collection process, the obtained data were transferred to the SPSS package program. 

Measures 

Demographic questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was used to obtain demographic information about the participants, such as their age, gender, and educational status. 

Inner Peace Scale. Xi and Lee (2021) developed the IPS with a sample of university students, and their scale consists of nine items and the three sub-dimensions of acceptance of loss, inner balance and calmness, and transcending hedonism and materialism. Responses are given using a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = Almost never and 5 = Almost always. Items that measure inner peace negatively are reverse scored. The scale’s reliability was found to be .72 for acceptance of loss, 0.78 for inner balance and calmness, and .63 for transcending hedonism and materialism. Standardized loadings were found within the range of .49 and 0.86, with the item-total correlations being found between .41 and .64. The model’s fit values were χ2 / df = 1.72, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .97, TLI= .95, and SRMR = .04. 

Tranquility Scale. The Tranquility Scale was developed by Demirci and Ekşi (2017) and consists of eight items and one dimension. The one-dimensional scale explains 40.32% of the total variance. The factor loadings of the measured items range from .55 to .71. Correlations of adjusted item-total scores vary between .42 and .56. The internal consistency of the scale was calculated as .78 and the test-retest coefficient as .83. The fit index values obtained as a result of confirmatory factor analysis were χ2 / df = 2.93, p < .001, CFI = .97, NFI = .96, NNFI = .96, SRMR = .04, and RMSEA = .06. 

Brief Serenity Scale. The original Serenity Scale was developed by Roberts and Aspy (1993). Kreitzer et al. (2009) developed the brief version (BSS), consisting of 22 questions. The Turkish version was adapted by Altunkürek (2021). The BSS is a 5-point Likert-type scale, with each item on the scale being evaluated as 1 = Never and 5 = Always. The scale consists of three subdimensions: inner peace, acceptance, and trust, with higher scores indicating higher serenity levels. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was found to be .77 for inner peace, .73 for acceptance, and .71 for trust, with the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from .30 to .55. The model fit values were χ2 / df = 1.60, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .91, and GFI = .90. 

Data Analysis 

First of all, the presence of any missing values was checked in the data. The negative items from the IPS were reverse-coded. Internal consistency and two semi-reliability tests were performed for scale reliability. In addition, item-total correlations were checked. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test whether the scale was valid for the Turkish sample, and maximum likelihood estimation method was used in the confirmatory factor analysis. For good fit of the model, the following criteria were used: χ2 / df < 3; RMSEA and SRMR < 0.05; AGFI < 0.90; NFI, IFI, GFI, CFI, and TLI < .95. For acceptable fit, the criteria of χ2 / df < 5; RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08; AGFI < 0.85; NFI, IFI, GFI, CFI, and TLI < 0.90 were used (Byrne, 2010, Kline, 2011). Correlations with the Tranquility Scale and Brief Serenity Scale were calculated for criterion validity. 

Results 

Confirmatory Factor Analysis 

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test whether the scale is valid in the Turkish sample. CFA goodness-of-fit values were found as χ2 / df = 3.85, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .06, AGFI = .90, GFI = .95, NFI = .91, IFI = .93, CFI = .93, and TLI = .90. The findings reveal the model to have sufficient goodness of fit, with Figure 1 showing the CFA model. All paths shown in the model are significant at the p = 0.01 level. The factor loads of the items tested with CFA are Item 1 = .65, Item 2 = .87, Item 3 = .64, Item 4 = .82, Item 5 = .86, Item 6 = .44, Item 7 = .70, Item 8 = .93, and Item 9 = .54. Due to the factor load values being greater than 0.30, these values are found to be sufficient (Seçer, 2015).

Figure 1. Results from the CFA model for the Inner Peace Scale. 

Criterion Validity 

Correlation values for the IPS with the Tranquility Scale and Brief Serenity Scale were calculated for establishing the IPS’ criterion validity. According to the analysis results, a correlation value of .47 was calculated between the IPS and Tranquility Scale and of .53 between the IPS and Brief Serenity Scale. 

Table 1 

Correlation Results 

Conclusion and Discussion 

Happiness has recently gained popularity in the scientific literature as well as in everyday usage (Lu & Sihih, 1997). Still, the definitions of happiness and well-being can differ from one culture to another (Demirci & Ekşi, 2017; Joshanloo, 2013, 2014). The notion of happiness is commonly based on two distinct traditions: hedonics and eudaemonia (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Strelhow et al., 2019). While hedonic well-being is represented by concepts such as subjective well-being and life satisfaction, eudaemonic well-being is represented by concepts such as psychological well-being and peace (Demirci & Ekşi, 2018; Pritchard et al., 2020; Şimşir & Dilmaç, 2021). Surprisingly, however, research on the concepts of tranquility and peace has been ignored in all areas of psychology (Floody, 2014). Accordingly, this research attempts to adapt the Inner Peace Scale (IPS) as created by Xi and Lee (2021) into Turkish. 

The validity and reliability of the IPS for the Turkish sample were evaluated using a step-by-step approach (e.g., Lenz et al., 2017). First, the scale was translated into English by this study’s authors, who then discussed among themselves and finalized the scale items. After a linguist performed the back translation, the authors compared the two versions of the scale. The final version of the scale was validated by a scholar with advanced proficiency in English and Turkish. 

Secondly, CFA was conducted to test whether the three-dimensional structure of the scale was valid in the Turkish sample. According to the CFA results, the scale consists of three sub-dimensions in accordance with the original scale (i.e., acceptance of loss, inner balance and calmness, and transcending hedonism and materialism). The factor load values of the items from each sub-dimension were identified as ranging from .44 to .93. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), an item load value of at least .32 is acceptable. The scale’s fit index values were additionally determined to be acceptable with χ2 / df = 3.85, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .06, AGFI = .90, GFI = .95, NFI = .91, IFI = .93, CFI = .93, and TLI = .90 (Kline, 2011). 

Thirdly, to assess the scale’s convergent validity, the IPS’ correlations to the Tranquility Scale (Demirci & Ekşi, 2017) and to the Brief Serenity Scale (Altun Kürek, 2021) were investigated. The IPS was shown to have significant positive associations with the comparable scales. These findings suggest the IPS to assess the same structural components as other scales reported in the literature as having a similar character. 

Lastly, Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency was calculated in order to evaluate the scale’s reliability. The results of the analysis revealed the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scale’s sub-dimensions to vary from .73 to .75 and to be calculated as. 76 for the overall scale (all nine items). Similar results were reported in the scale’s initial research, with Cronbach’s alpha originally found to be .73 for all scale items (Xi & Le, 2021). Having a Cronbach’s alpha greater than .70 shows the scale to be reliable (Büyüköztürk, 2011). 

Limitations and Recommendations 

This study examined the psychometric features of the IPS, which was initially developed in English, using a Turkish sample. As a result of the investigation, the scale’s psychometric characteristics were concluded to be acceptable for the Turkish adult population. However, the study has several limitations that need to be considered. The most important limitation of the research is related to generalizability. The research findings may not be generalizable to all adults due to the data being comprised only of a sample of university students. In light of this, choosing more diverse samples for upcoming research would be beneficial. Furthermore, because the scale is a self-report scale, some individuals may have replied carelessly or with bias. Therefore, researchers may consider obtain qualitative data through interviews in addition to the IPS in future studies. The absence of a test-retest analysis for evaluating the reliability of the scale was another limitation of this study. Future research may conduct a comprehensive assessment of the scale’s psychometric characteristics in order to overcome this limitation. In summary, this research presents initial evidence for the validity of the Inner Peace Scale’s psychometric properties in a Turkish sample. 

This research may contribute to the measurement of inner peace as Turkish culture’s version of eudaemonic well-being (e.g., Demirci & Ekşi, 2018). This scale can be employed by mental health practitioners to evaluate the well-being of their clients or other counselors. Moreover, researchers may also consider using this scale to measure happiness or well-being in a Turkish sample.