18 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Education and Training Vol. 5, No. 1, 18-24, 2019 ISSN(E) 2519-5387 DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2019.51.18.24 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Comparison of Participation Constraints in Recreational Physical Activity of the Teachers Working Iğdir and Erzurum Provinces Mehmet Ali ÖZTÜRK1 1Karabük University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Turkey Abstract The aim of the study is to compare the participation constraint for leisure activities of teachers who working In the Ministry of National Education (MNE). In order to determine the leisure time constraints leisure constraints scales (LCS) were applied to the participants. A total of 413 teachers (258 male and 155 female) working in the Ministry of National Education participated in the study in Iğdır and Erzurum provinces. No statistically significant difference was found at the level of p <0,05 in any of the sub-dimensions as a result of the inter-city comparison of the female participants. While there was a significant difference in the lack of information, facilities and time sub-dimensions of the male participants in the study, p <0.05 was not significant difference in the other sub-dimensions. It is seen that the difference is in favor of the participants from the province of Erzurum. There was no statistically significant difference between the two cities in terms of lack of information, facilities and time (p <0,05) in the subscales, as in male participants. The female teachers who working Iğdır and Erzurum province there was no difference between the scores in the LCS and the mean scores of both groups were close to each other. For the male participants working in Iğdır province, it was determined that the lack of information, facilities and time constraints were more effective in participation of recreational physical activities than male participants working in Erzurum province. Keywords: Recreation, Physical activity, Leisure constraints, Teachers. JEL Classification: L83. Citation | Mehmet Ali ÖZTÜRK (2019). Comparison of Participation Constraints in Recreational Physical Activity of the Teachers Working Iğdir and Erzurum Provinces. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(1): 18-24. History: Received: 5 September 2018 Revised: 9 October 2018 Accepted: 12 November 2018 Published: 4 December 2018 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper. Transparency: The author confirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Method ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 3. Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.522.2019.51.18.24&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/373 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4863-9340 http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/373 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4863-9340 http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/373 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4863-9340 Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(1): 18-24 19 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 1. Introduction When leisure time studies are examined, it's seen that those related to leisure time constraints are important. However, the literature contributed significantly to the knowledge of leisure time constraints and provided insights into the relationship between leisure time constraints and leisure time experienced (Wang and Wu, 2016). While the first studies on leisure time are more theoretical (Crawford et al., 1991; Samdahl and Jekubovich, 1997) especially in the 2000s, empirical results have been put forward to cover a very large part of the society such as adults, women and disabled people (Wang and Wu, 2016). Leisure constraints are defined as factors that influence the ability of individuals to choose leisure preferences for specific activities and to limit their capacity to participate in activities (Jackson and Scott, 1999). Crawford and Godbey (1987) used the three-dimensional classification of leisure time constraints (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural), which were initially applied to address multifaceted relationships with other variables such as preferences and participation. Due to the strong interactions between the dimensions, the fact that the factors were not discriminatory and the low internal consistency brought about many concerns about the use of this tripartite approach (Godbey et al., 2010). For this reason, some scientists (Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Jun and Kyle, 2011) also benefited from different constraints within a certain activity and environment. Crawford and Godbey (1987) first mentioned three possible constraints, namely intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural, for participation to leisure constraints of families. Examples include intrapersonal situations such as anxiety, depression, religiosity, stress and perceived self-skill. Interpersonal constraints can be defined as the result of interpersonal interaction among intrapersonal. Structural constraints can include climate, season, financial resources, workload and so on. For these three identified constraints, then the category of hierarchically arranged leisure constraints was developed (Wang and Wu, 2016). Raymore et al. (1993), Crawford and Godbey (1987) and Crawford et al. (1991) mentioned three intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural leisure time constraints, each of the sub-headings have been mentioned in a comprehensive time constraints criterion. Intrapersonal constraints: faith, introversion, shy, skill, discomfort and living with the family; interpersonal constraints; information about activities, money status, obligations, capabilities, time, transportation and distance; structural constraints: suitability, availability, financial situation, non-crowded places, time and other elements (Wang and Wu, 2016). Studies focusing on leisure constraints have been revised with new developments with the development of various conceptual models (Jackson, 2005). One of the most noteworthy of these models is the hierarchical model (Figure 1) of leisure time constraints proposed by Crawford et al. (1991). According to the first phase of this model, potential participants in the decision-making process for their first participation in leisure activities face a number of constraints. The second stage shows how participants who participate in recreational activities and who have experience in participation in these activities progress to a higher level of entertainment (Bryan, 1977; Stebbins, 1992). In this model, many researchers test whether three-level constraints create different categories or structures, as well as many researches that directly or indirectly describe the types of constraints to be connected to three levels. For example; Raymore et al. (1993) demonstrated the validity of the three-dimensional structure using confirmatory factor analysis. Their results provided preliminary evidence supporting the existence of three subgroups. Crawford et al. (1991) estimate that social classes, which are generally shaped by income and education, have a strong influence on people's perceptions and experiences about constraints, which ultimately affect their participation in leisure activities. Although not directly or indirectly present in this proposition, this study does not include any empirical evidence, but many studies addressing relationships between demographic variables (such as gender, income, education, ethnic background) and perceived constraints (Jackson, 2005). McCarville and Smale (1993) examined perceived constraints in five main areas that affect participation in leisure activities (physical activity and exercise, arts and entertainment, hobbies, social activities and home entertainment). The findings suggest that the constraints do not show a balanced distribution within the total population. People in the low-income group exhibit more constraints than those who are wealthy (perceived age compliance, health, difficulties in communication language, costs, lack of companion, information, accessibility / compliance). Alexandris and Carroll (1997b) conclude that psychological, interest, and negative past experiences, perceived absence, lack of information, accessibility / financial constraints are more common among the less educated individuals. These findings obtained from Raymore et al. (1994) in accordance with the results of the study. In their study, they examined the relationships between socio-economic status (perceived household income and education levels of parents) and perceived constraints and found that socio-economic status was in an inverse relationship with interpersonal constraints. They also concluded that there was no significant relationship between the other two types of constraints and socio-economic status. To summarize, the distribution of constraints in socio-economic steps in current studies, Crawford et al. (1991) the evidence supports the existence of a social privilege hierarchy in general to experience leisure constraints. Furthermore, a common finding from the present literature indicates that women experience more constraints on leisure than men, especially in terms of interpersonal constraints (Culp, 1998; Henderson and Ainsworth, 2000; Shaw and Henderson, 2005). We also believe that gender equality issues support the hierarchical social concession proposition indirectly (Crawford et al., 1991). Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(1): 18-24 20 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Figure-1. Hierarchical model of leisure constraints (Lyu and Oh, 2014). Source: The source is already given under Figure (Lyu and Oh, 2014). 2. Method 2.1. Model of Research The research was carried out to compare the factors that constraints the participation of teachers in Iğdır and Erzurum provinces in their leisure activities. Screening model was used in the research. The screening model is known as a research approach that aims to describe a situation that has existed in the past or is still present. The subject, object, event, subject to the study is tried to be defined in its own conditions and as it is Karasar (2000). 2.2. Sampling The population of the study was composed of the secondary schools and high schools of the Ministry of National Education (MNE) in the provinces of Iğdır and Erzurum, and the sample of the 13 schools included in the study. A total of 413 people, 258 male (62.5%) and 155 female (37.5%), participated in the study. 2.3. Data Collection Tool In the study; The Leisure Constraint Questionnairewas (LCQ) used to determine and compare the constraints to participation in the leisure activities of teachers. The Turkish validity and reliability study of the scale was performed by Öztürk et al. (2017). The original of the LCQ was developed by Alexandris and Carroll (1997b) by applying 153 people in Larissa, Greece. After the factor analysis, it was determined that the scale was composed of 7 sub-dimensions (psychological, knowledge, facilities, accessibility, interest, partners and time) and the contribution of these factors to the total variance was 61%. As a result of the internal consistency analysis applied to the original scale, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the whole scale and for each sub-dimension was between 0.59 and 0.81 and the scale was accepted as reliable for usability in the study (Alexandris and Carroll, 1997a). In addition, as a result of the internal consistency analysis performed by Öztürk et al. (2017) Cronbach's Alpha value for the whole scale was: 0,876, Spearman-Brown Correlation value: 0,754 and Guttman Split Half Correlation value: 0,754. The scale consists of 29 items. The scale was scored as 5-point likert (1: I completely disagree, 5: completely agree). For this reason, while interpreting the research findings; the higher the scores obtained from the scale, the participants were evaluated as a negative result. 2.4. Analysis of Data Demographic characteristics of the participants were determined by descriptive statistics. The usability of the LCQ in our study was measured by internal consistency analysis. Internal consistency analysis reliability test Cronbac'h Alpha value was determined as 0.874 for all the scale and for sub-dimensions knowledge: 0,698, psychological: 0,704, time: 0,716, interest: 0,738, partners: 0,753, facility: 0,774 and accessibility: 0,779. These values were found to be acceptable for usability of the scale in our research. Whether the scores of the participants in the LCQ differed for seven sub-dimensions of gender and marital status between the two cities were first measured by One Way MANOVA. The MANOVA test was found level of p<0.05 as a result of the covariance equation and it was determined that the covariances of the groups were not equally distributed in sex and marital situations. (Table 1). For this reason, whether or not the scores differed significantly by applying the filtering technique (First, only male participants were filtered and compared to the city. Therefore, the difference between the two cities gave us only findings about male participants. The same procedure was applied to female participants. For marital status, statistics were applied with gender measurement technique.) for gender and marital status were measured by independent sample t-test due to the normal distribution of the data. Normality distributions were found by applying Z-Test. The Z-Test is a test used for normal distribution using the kurtosis and skewness values. The Z value is obtained by dividing the kurtosis or skewness data by its own standard errors (Kim, 2013). In the studies where the significance of p <0.05 was considered, the absolute value of the Z score was between 1.96 and -1.96, indicating that the data were normally distributed (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). The two-way MANOVA test was used to determine whether there were any differences in the sub-dimensions between the two cities. The significance level was accepted as p <0.05 and the confidence interval was 95%. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(1): 18-24 21 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Table-1. Covariance Matrix Equation Test Independent Variabale Df1 Df2 F P Gender 84 243750,790 2,436 0,000 Marital Status 84 319888,139 3,647 0,000 Source: This table is result of Covariance Matrix Test of our studies. 3. Results Table 2 gives demographic information about the participants in the study. 258 male participants (62.5%, Iğdır: N = 116, Erzurum: N = 142) from Erzurum and Iğdır, and 155 female participants (37.5%, Iğdır: N = 66, Erzurum: N = 89). A total of 413 teachers participated. 56.4% (N = 233) of the participants were married and 43.6% (N = 180) were single. In terms of working year; 186 people (45%, Igdır: N = 82, Erzurum: N = 104) between 1-5 years, 100 people (24.2%, Igdır: N = 40, Erzurum: N = 60) between 6-10 years, 56 people (13.6%, Igdır: N = 27, Erzurum: N = 29) between 11-15 years and 71 people (17.2%, Igdır: N = 33, Erzurum: N = 38) 16 years and It is observed that they have working year experience. Table 3 shows the scores of women and men by province. According to this; Although the female participants from the province of Erzurum have a lower score than the women who participated in the study from Iğdır province, this score is not statistically significant. In terms of male participants, the scores of the participants from Erzurum were lower in all sub-dimensions. According to this result, the knowledge (t=-3,492; p = 0,001), facilities (t=-2,306; p=0,022) and time (t=-4,078; p=0,000) sub-dimensions p <0.05 level of significant difference has created. In terms of marital status (Table 4); It was determined that the married and single participants who participated in the study from the province of Erzurum received lower scores than the married and single participants from Iğdır province. However, the difference in points between the groups did not constitute any significant difference in any sub-dimension. The comparison of the scores of the participants in terms of the working years was done by MONOVA test in Table 5. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that there were no differences between the sub-dimension dependent variables in the province, the working year and the working year *province. Table-2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants Gender Province N % Male Iğdır 116 45 Erzurum 142 55 Female Iğdır 66 42,05 Erzurum 89 57,05 Working Year Province N % 1-5 Years Iğdır 82 44,01 Erzurum 104 59,09 6-10 Years Iğdır 40 40 Erzurum 60 60 11-15 Years Iğdır 27 48,02 Erzurum 29 51,08 16 Years and over Iğdır 33 46,05 Erzurum 38 53,05 Martial Status Province N % Married Iğdır 97 41,06 Erzurum 136 58,04 Single Iğdır 85 47,2 Erzurum 95 52,8 Source: This table is result of our studies. Table-3. Independent sample t-test comparing male and female participants' scores between provinces Gender Province N Mean SS(±) t p Psychological Female ER 66 3,684 1,465 ,770 ,442 IĞD 89 3,509 1,346 Male ER 116 3,419 ,141 -1,795 ,074 IĞD 142 3,733 ,108 Knowledge Female ER 66 2,433 1,126 -1,818 ,071 IĞD 89 2,788 1,257 Male ER 116 2,556 ,115 -3,492 ,001* IĞD 142 3,094 ,102 Facilities Female ER 66 3,454 1,713 -,589 ,557 IĞD 89 3,604 1,451 Male ER 116 3,194 ,128 -2,306 ,022* IĞD 142 3,570 ,103 Accessibility Female ER 66 3,200 1,391 -1,069 ,287 IĞD 89 3,449 1,461 Male ER 116 3,122 ,128 -1,953 ,052 IĞD 142 3,459 ,114 Interest Female ER 66 2,280 1,689 -,425 ,672 IĞD 89 2,387 1,449 Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(1): 18-24 22 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Male ER 116 2,633 ,155 -,727 ,468 IĞD 142 2,778 ,127 Partners Kadın ER 66 3,237 1,551 -1,051 ,295 IĞD 89 3,516 1,697 Erkek ER 116 3,371 ,124 -1,443 ,128 IĞD 142 3,568 ,120 Time Female ER 66 2,742 1,132 -1,372 ,172 IĞD 89 3,005 1,216 Male ER 116 2,484 ,092 -4,078 ,000* IĞD 142 3,068 ,105 * p<0,05, ER= Erzurum, IĞD= Iğdır Table-4. Independent sample t-test comparing the scores of married and single participants among provinces Gender Province N Mean SS(±) t p Psychological Married IĞD 97 3,273 1,357 -1,773 ,077 ER 136 3,511 1,234 Single IĞD 85 3,598 1,484 -,001 ,999 ER 95 3,598 1,340 Knowledge Married IĞD 97 2,830 1,207 -1,275 ,192 ER 136 3,014 1,164 Single IĞD 85 2,604 1,197 -1,666 ,097 ER 95 2,922 1,342 Facilities Married IĞD 97 3,508 1,580 -1,057 ,245 ER 136 3,755 1,325 Single IĞD 85 3,687 1,577 -,479 ,632 ER 95 3,581 1,389 Accessibility Married IĞD 97 3,433 1,340 -,643 ,524 ER 136 3,516 1,399 Single IĞD 85 3,285 1,431 -,392 ,635 ER 95 3,368 1,408 Interest Married IĞD 97 2,510 1,636 -,804 ,422 ER 136 2,680 1,554 Single IĞD 85 2,500 1,740 -,223 ,824 ER 95 2,552 1,428 Partners Married IĞD 97 3,494 1,508 -1,330 ,115 ER 136 3,720 1,504 Single IĞD 85 2,992 1,308 -1,434 ,153 ER 95 3,301 1,559 Time Married IĞD 97 2,876 ,982 -,362 ,688 ER 136 2,954 1,199 Single IĞD 85 2,917 1,111 -1,133 ,228 ER 95 3,173 1,284 * p<0,05, ER= Erzurum, IĞD= Iğdır Table-5. The MANOVA test results of the participants were compared between the provinces according to the working years. Resource Mean Square df F p Psychological W. Years 2,296 3 1,896 ,107 Prv 2,651 1 1,472 ,226 W. Years * Prv ,275 3 ,153 ,928 Knowledge W. Years ,118 3 ,078 ,972 Prv 2,387 1 1,388 ,268 W. Years * Prv ,710 3 ,470 ,704 Facilities W. Years 2,091 3 1,925 ,095 Prv 1,455 1 ,918 ,387 W. Years * Prv ,1836 3 ,864 ,460 Accessibility W. Years 2,037 3 1,043 ,373 Prv ,735 1 ,497 ,685 W. Years * Prv ,708 3 ,363 ,780 Interest W. Years 1,589 3 1,443 ,230 Prv 1,430 1 ,1,115 ,320 W. Years * Prv 1,766 3 1,514 ,214 Partners W. Years 1,251 3 ,665 ,548 Prv 1,684 1 1,143 ,188 W. Years * Prv ,824 3 ,375 ,771 Time W. Years 1,042 3 ,883 ,486 Prv 2,184 1 1,784 ,158 W. Years * Prv ,231 3 ,173 ,915 W. Years = 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16 years and over, Prv = Province Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(1): 18-24 23 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 4. Conclusion Studies on recreation and leisure constraints have been increasing rapidly in recent years (Kim et al., 2015). Constraints were defined as the barriers to not participating in the activities in the first studies. In later studies, barriers were evaluated as constraints, and studies were carried out to deal with those constraints (Alexandris et al., 2007). Many theoretical and empirical research was based on factors such as budget, time, facilities and psychological status (Crawford and Godbey, 1987; Crompton and Kim, 2004; Hung and Petrick, 2010). The scale used in our study measures the extent to which these factors are effective in the constraints on participation in leisure time activities. At this point, the findings of this part of the research are discussed and the results are presented. In Erzurum and Iğdır provinces, the main purpose of this study is to compare the participation constraints of secondary school and high school teachers in leisure activities. A total of 413 people from both provinces participated in the study. Those who participated in the study from Erzurum (N=231) took more places than those from Iğdır province. Considering the fact that Erzurum has much more population than Iğdır and the number of students and teachers in schools is high, this result can be considered as normal. In addition, men and 258 women and 155 people contributed to the study. When the participants were evaluated in terms of the working year; It was observed that most of the groups were teachers with working experience between 186 and 1-5 years, and between 100 and 6-10 years. In addition, 71 teachers with 16 years and more and 56 teachers with 11-15 years experience were included in the study. Erzurum and Iğdır are located in the eastern part of our country. In particular, it is known that most of the teachers perform the compulsory eastern tasks during years they were first appointed. This situation can be said to be the main reason for young teachers to be more involved in the research. It is thought that most of the teachers with long term duty are registered to the population in the city where they are located. 56.4% of the participants were married and 43.6% were single participants. In all sub-dimensions (psychological, knowledge, facilities, accessibility, interest, partners and time), female Participants in the province of Erzurum has lower scores than the female participants in the province of Iğdır was determined. However, these differences did not make any statistically significant difference. According to this result; The fact that women who participated in the study from Iğdır could not participate in leisure time activities compared to the women who participated in the study from Erzurum province can be interpreted that all factors are more effective. When evaluated in terms of male participants; The scores of the participants from the Erzurum province were lower in all sub-dimensions. However, this difference in score, knowledge (t = -3,492; p = 0,001), facilities (t=-2,306; p=0,022) and time (t=-4,078; p=0,000) sub-dimensions there was a significant difference the level of p<0.05. Ayhan et al. (2018) found a significant difference between women and men in favor of women in all sub-dimensions according to the results of the study, which examined the barriers of participation of recreational students in recreational activities. They concluded that women were more involved in such activities than men. Barkın et al. (2017) found differences in faculties and high school students sub-dimensions of facilities and side causes in their studies comparing the constraints on participation in recreational activities. It was determined that the married and single participants who participated in the study from the province of Erzurum received lower scores than the married and single participants who participated in the study from Iğdır but these differences did not make any significant difference. As a result of comparison of the scores of the participants in terms of the working year, it was determined that the dependent variables did not make any difference between the province, the working year and the working year *province. In our study, the factors of non-participants of of leisure time activities in Iğdır province were lower in all sub- dimensions than in Erzurum. Although the scores of the participants from Erzurum province are lower in all sub- dimensions; The main factors that stand out can say as knowlegde, facilities and time. In other words, these three factors have been much more effective in their inability to participate in the activities of teachers working in Iğdır. In a study conducted on university students; It was determined that the most constraints on students' participation in activities were caused by structural reasons (Richard et al., 2011). In another study in which teachers' leisure time constraints were determined, it was found that lack of time and knowledge was the most important factor in the restriction of participation in activities (Üstün et al., 2017). The results of the research revealed that the participants in Erzurum province have less disability to participate in leisure activities than the participants of Iğdır province. The reasons such as the fact that Erzurum has much more social and cultural opportunities compared to Iğdır and at the same time it is much larger in terms of population may have caused this result to be in the research. Teachers' participation in leisure activities depends on many factors such as their budgets, their time, finding more suitable activity areas in terms of accessibility, and the condition of the facilities. It is expected that these opportunities will be provided to participants in Erzurum compared to Iğdır. References Alexandris, K. and B. Carroll, 1997a. An analysis of leisure constraints based on different recreational sport participation levels: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure Sciences, 19(1): 1-15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409709512236w. Alexandris, K. and B. Carroll, 1997b. Demographic differences in the perception of constraints on recreational sport participation: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure Studies, 16(2): 107-125. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/026143697375449. Alexandris, K., C. Kouthouris and G. Girgolas, 2007. Investigating the relationships among motivation, negotiation, and alpine skiing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(4): 648-667. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2007.11950126. Ayhan, C., N. Ekinci, Ġ. Yalçın and ġ. Yiğit, 2018. Investigation of constraints that occur during participation in leisure activities by high school students: A sample of Turkey. Education Sciences, 8(2): 86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020086. Barkın, E., A. Ağılönü and Ö. M.A., 2017. Examination of constraints to participation in recreational physical activities of university students (Muğla Province Case). University of Muğla, Institute of Social Sciences, Master's Thesis. Bryan, H., 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9(3): 174- 187. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1977.11970328. Crawford, D.W. and G. Godbey, 1987. Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9(2): 119-127. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408709512151. Crawford, D.W., E.L. Jackson and G. Godbey, 1991. A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13(4): 309-320. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513147. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(1): 18-24 24 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Crompton, J.L. and S.-S. Kim, 2004. Temporal changes in perceived constraints to visiting state parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(2): 160-182. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950018. Culp, R.H., 1998. Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: A case study examining constraints and effective programming. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(3): 356-379. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1998.11949838. Ghasemi, A. and S. Zahediasl, 2012. Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2): 486-489. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505. Gilbert, D. and S. Hudson, 2000. Tourism demand constraints: A skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4): 906-925. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00110-3. Godbey, G., D.W. Crawford and X.S. Shen, 2010. Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory after two decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1): 111-134. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2010.11950197. Henderson, K.A. and B.E. Ainsworth, 2000. Enablers and constraints to walking for older African American and American Indian women: The cultural activity participation study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(4): 313-321. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.10608914. Hung, K. and J.F. Petrick, 2010. Developing a measurement scale for constraints to cruising. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1): 206-228. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.09.002. Jackson, E.L., 2005. Leisure constraints research: Overview of a developing theme in leisure studies. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture. pp: 3–19. Jackson, E.L. and D. Scott, 1999. Constraints to leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century. State College, PA: Venture. pp: 299–321. Jun, J. and G.T. Kyle, 2011. The effect of identity conflict/facilitation on the experience of constraints to leisure and constraint negotiation. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(2): 176-204. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2011.11950232. Karasar, N., 2000. Scientific research method. 10th Edn., Ankara: Editorial Nobel. Kim, H.-Y., 2013. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1): 52-54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52. Kim, M.K., D. Lee, S.-K. Kim and M. Kim, 2015. Leisure constraints affecting experienced martial arts participants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(9): 1063-1079. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2014.952240. Lyu, S.O. and C.-O. Oh, 2014. Recreationists’ constraints negotiation process for continual leisure engagement. Leisure Sciences, 36(5): 479- 497. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2014.920702. McCarville, R. and B.J. Smale, 1993. Perceived constraints to leisure participation within five activity domains. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(2): 40-59. Öztürk, M.A., A. Yıkılmaz and E. Sarıkol, 2017. Turkish validity and reliability study of the leisure constraint scale. International Scientific Researches Congress on Humanities and Social Sciences, 24. Raymore, L., G. Godbey, D. Crawford and A. Von Eye, 1993. Nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15(2): 99-113. Raymore, L.A., G.C. Godbey and D.W. Crawford, 1994. Self-esteem, gender, and socioeconomic status: Their relation to perceptions of constraint on leisure among adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(2): 99-118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1994.11969948. Richard, L., I. Gage and B. Thapa, 2011. Motivations and limitations of volunteers among university students: Analysis of volunteer function inventory and models of free time restrictions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3): 405-430. Samdahl, D.M. and N.J. Jekubovich, 1997. A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4): 430-452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1997.11949807. Shaw, S.M. and K. Henderson, 2005. Gender analysis and leisure constraints: An uneasy Alliance. E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture. pp: 23-34. Stebbins, R.A., 1992. Amateur, professional, and serious leisure. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Üstün, U.D., A. Ersoy and H. Bisgin, 2017. An investigation on perceived constraints of teachers in relation to leisure activities. Online Submission Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise, 19(2): 157-161. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15314/tsed.301569. Wang, T.W. and C.T. Wu, 2016. Identifying leisure constraints among college students – application of a fuzzy approach. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 8(4): 177-187. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.