416 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Education and Training Vol. 5, No. 3, 416-421, 2019 ISSN(E) 2519-5387 DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2019.53.416.421 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Turkish Adaptation of Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale: Reliability and Validity Studies Nilay Çelik Ercoşkun1 Ceyhun Ozan2 Remzi Y Kincal3 ( Corresponding Author) 1,2Atatürk University, Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education, Erzurum, Turkey. 3Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Education, Canakkale, Turkey. Abstract The aim of this study is to adapt the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, which was developed by Fibel and Hale (1978) and revised by Hale et al. (1992) into Turkish in terms of adaptation, reliability and adaptation. This study modelled by survey is a scale adaptation study. The scale was adapted into Turkish culture in terms of language equivalence, reliability and validity. The population of the study consisted of the students of the Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education, Faculty of Literature, Faculty of Science and Faculty of Theology of Atatürk University. All students in the Faculty of Education, the Faculty of Literature, the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Theology and the 4th grade students who are subject to the pedagogical formation program were tried to be reached and as a result, the research was conducted with 1450 students. The results have shown that the scale had language validity and translation period was implemented successfully. According to exploratory factor analysis’s results, the structure was consisted of three factors- 21 items, which explained 46, 6% of variance. According to study results, it is determined that the adapted version of the scale is used as a reliable and valid instrument to assess the generalized expectancy for success of Turkish university students. The scale is also used to determine sub-dimensions e.g. individual expectancy, social interaction and failure as well as the generalized expectancy for success. Keywords: Generalized expectancy for success, Scale adaptation, University students, Individual expectancy, Social interaction, Failure. Citation | Nilay Çelik Ercoşkun; Ceyhun Ozan; Remzi Y Kincal (2019). Turkish Adaptation of Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale: Reliability and Validity Studies. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(3): 416-421. History: Received: 15 April 2019 Revised: 22 May 2019 Accepted: 1 July 2019 Published: 28 August 2019 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Acknowledgement: This study held in Mugla, Turkey on 26-28 October 2017 were presented as oral presentations at the 5th International Curriculum and Instruction Congress. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Transparency: The authors confirm 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 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 417 2. Method ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 417 3. Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 418 4. Conclusion and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................... 420 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 420 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.522.2019.53.416.421&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/958 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-0585 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-7258 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-393X http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/958 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-0585 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-7258 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-393X http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/958 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-0585 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-7258 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-393X http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/958 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-0585 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-7258 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-393X http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/958 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-0585 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-7258 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-393X Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 416-421 417 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature This study contributes to the existing literature by adapting the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, which was developed by Fibel and Hale (1978) and revised by Hale et al. (1992) into Turkish. 1. Introduction Expectancy for success is defined as beliefs about how people will be good at their future positions (Eccles- Parsons et al., 1983; Eccles and Wigfield, 1995). Another definition is that expectancy for success is a belief that people success their aims, solve the problems and be loyal to long-term career goals (Nevid and Rathus, 2007). Wigfield and Eccles (2000) said that these expectancy beliefs would be expectancies for success rather than expectancy for results. Students’ expectancies for success are affected by both their success choices and academic participations e.g. Struggle and persistence (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). It reflects people’s optimistic guesses about their personal futures. Optimistic opinions like these have positive effect upon physical and psychological goodness because it increases their self-confidences and values (Rathus and Nevid, 1995; Nevid and Rathus, 2007). Wigfield (1994) stated that the relationship between expectancy for success and success performance was more in favour of the students who were talented in first years of school and thought to develop their talents via increasing struggle. When students have positive expectancies and values, they cope with changes and ambiguities in better and more active way (Wigfield and Gladstone, 2019). Students having high expectancies for success tend to internal focalization, and they show better academic performances and talents of pleasure adjournment than students having low expectancies for success. Students, who are goal and success focused, think as that they are in command of their academic and social destinies, and they show high desires and expectancies for success. They relate their successes and failures to their struggles reflecting their self-confidences and strong sense of self (Yong, 2010). The results of study have stated that students’ expectancies for mathematics success predict their mathematics grades in a strong way, and their perceived mathematics values predict their mathematics choices more and advanced mathematic courses enrollment in high school in a strong way (Parsons et al., 1984; Meece et al., 1990; Ethington, 1991; Simpkins et al., 2006). Many research implementing in other countries show that expectancies for success of students predict their success outputs (Midkiff et al., 1986; Nagengast et al., 2011; Bong et al., 2012; Musu-Gillette et al., 2015). According to the research analyzing the relationship among expectancy for success and other variables, the relationship among expectancy for success and internal motivation (Story et al., 2009) self- support (Shepherd, 2014) and hope (Snyder et al., 2002) is significantly positive. Nonetheless, students having low expectancies for success tend to their successes or failures due to outer factors e.g. destiny, luck or their ethnic origin. Low expectancy for success is related to low academic success, and students feeling weak because of their successes connect their failures to external factors like favoritism, social injustice and others (Yong, 2010). According to Pintrich and Schunk (1996) expectancy for success is supported with realistic and specialized for the course, struggling missions, positive communication and minimum social comparison. There is no any scale about evaluating university students’ expectancies for success in Turkey according to the related literature. It is thought to be significant for Turkish adaptation of the scale expectancy for success, which is an important indicator for success tendencies of students. The aim of this study is to adapt the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, which was developed by Fibel and Hale (1978) and revised by Hale et al. (1992) into Turkish in terms of adaptation, reliability and adaptation. 2. Method 2.1. Research Design This study modelled by survey is a scale adaptation study. The scale was adapted into Turkish culture in terms of language equivalence, reliability and validity. 2.2. Population and Sample The population of the study consisted of the students of the Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education, Faculty of Literature, Faculty of Science and Faculty of Theology of Ataturk University. Criterion sampling method, which is one of the purposive sampling methods, was used in the study. In line with this, in parallel with the teaching areas in the Faculty of Education and based on volunteerism, all students in the Faculty of Education, the Faculty of Literature, the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Theology and the 4th grade students who are subject to the pedagogical formation program were tried to be reached and as a result, the research was conducted with 1450 students. 2.3. Data Collection Tool The Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, developed by Fibel and Hale (1978) and revised by Hale et al. (1992) was developed to measure the general success expectations of university students. In order to implement the adaptation study, the researchers who developed the scale were contacted by electronic mail and permission was obtained. The revised scale was applied to 199 university students and examined the relationship among the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Life Orientation Test, and Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. The scale is a 5-point Likert-type (1= highly improbable and 5= highly probable) measurement tool and comprises of 25 items with correlations of .45 or higher with the total score and split half reliability coefficient of .92. The scale is scored cumulatively with high scores indicating high expectancy for success. 2.4. Data Analysis Adaptation of the scale to Turkish covers the language validity, construct validity and reliability studies. Before performing the necessary procedures for adaptation to the data obtained from the scale, the necessary data Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 416-421 418 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group for the missing data, extreme value, normality and homogeneity were made, and the data set was made ready for the analyzes. In order to determine the construct validity of the scale, the exploratory factor analysis was carried out and the confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the accuracy of the structure obtained. After the validity study, reliability of the scale was performed by internal consistency method. In the scope of exploratory factor analysis, KMO test was applied to test the suitability of the sample size to be factorized. Bartlett test was used to determine whether the data obtained from the multivariate normal distribution in order to determine the factor structure of the scale, varimax was chosen as the principal component analysis as the factorization method and the orthogonal rotation method as the rotation method. The variance explained by the scale study was at least 40% (Kline, 1994) It has been paid attention that the load values of the items in the scale are at least .45, that the difference between the load values of the same items that gives load to different dimensions is at least .10, and that the eigenvalues of the dimensions are at least 1 and the item-total correlation is at least .30 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007; Cokluk et al., 2012). In confirmatory factor analysis, Chi Square Goodness, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), RMR (Root Mean Square Residual), NFI (Normed Fit Index), NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index), CFI (Relative Fit Index), RFI (Relative Fit Index), GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) and AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index) fit indices were used. If the X2/df ratio in the fit indices is below 3, the perfect fit; It was taken as a criterion from 0 to 5 (Kline, 2005) because it was below 5, indicating moderate compliance. RMSEA, RMR and SRMR values are good if ≤ .08 (Brown, 2006) The acceptable value for the NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI, RFI, GFI, AGFI fit indices was used as the criterion because it was considered to be .90 and the perfect fit value as .95 (Simsek, 2007). Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency was used for the reliability of the scale. If the reliability coefficient is between .60 and .80, the scale is very reliable, and if it is between .80 and 1.00, the scale is interpreted as highly reliable (Kalayci, 2010). SPSS 22.0 and Lisrel 8.80 programs were used to analyze the data. 3. Findings 3.1. Language Validation For the language validity studies of the scale, firstly the opinions of the experts in the field of English and Turkish were consulted. Two experts in the field of English Language Teaching first translated the scale into Turkish, and then two other experts in the field of English Language Teaching translated the Turkish version into English. Comparisons were made between the two forms and it was determined that the language validity of the scale was good. 3.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Because of the exploratory factor analysis conducted to reveal the structure of the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale KMO value was found to be.78 and the data structure was found to be suitable for factor analysis. When the Bartlett test results are analyzed, it is seen that the chi-square value obtained is significant (x2 (1423)= 5502.337; p=.00). The related values for the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale are given in Table 1. Table-1. Results of generalized expectancy for success scale exploratory factor analysis. Items First Factor (Individual Expectation) Second Factor (Social Interaction) Third Factor (Failure) Item-Total Correlation i1 .610 .447 i3 .548 .349 i4 .673 .482 i7 .666 .501 i10 .657 .478 i12 .511 .345 i13 .673 .465 i15 .559 .345 i17 .503 .357 i18 .617 .483 i20 .576 .394 i2 .476 .390 i5 .547 .426 i6 .708 .543 i9 .669 .565 i21 .697 .560 i8 .589 .351 i11 .750 .596 i14 .600 .531 i16 .717 .596 i19 .746 .591 Variance % 31.100 % 9.848 % 5.698 Total Variance % 46.646 Source: Obtained from primary data. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, a 3-factor structure was obtained explaining 46.646% of the variance. The first factor, which includes the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 18th and 20th items of these factors, explained 31.100% of the variance and the factor loadings of the items range from .511 to .673. The second factor, which includes the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 9th and 21th items, explains 9.848% of the variance and the factor loadings of the items vary between .476 and .708. The third factor, which includes the 8th, 11th, 14th, 16th and 19th items that need to be scored as negative because of the negative items, explains 5.698% of the variance and the factor loads of the items vary between .589 and .550. For the first factor, the factor total correlations ranged from .345 to Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 416-421 419 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group .501; for the second factor, ranging from .390 to .565; and for the third factor, it ranged from .351 to .596. As a result, it can be said that the variance explained by the scale with 3-factor structure and the factor loadings in the scale are at a good level. The first factor was named as “individual expectation”, the second factor was “social interaction” and the third factor was named as “failure”. Correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship between the factors of the generalized expectancy for success scale. Table 2 shows the correlation analysis showing the relationship between the factors of the generalized expectancy for success scale. Table-2. Correlation between factors of the generalized expectancy for success scale. Factors Individual Expectation Social Interaction Failure General Individual Expectation 1 .67* .32* .89* Social Interaction 1 .25* .77* Failure 1 .66* General 1 *p<.01 (2-tailed). When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that there are significant relationships between factors and there is no multicollinearity. 3.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Figure-1. Confirmatory factor analysis for generalized expectancy for success scale. Source: Obtained from primary data. When Figure 1 is examined, it is seen that the fit indexes of the generalized expectancy for success scale consisting of 21 items and 3 factors are significant (X2=734.90, df=186, p=.000, X2/df=3.95). As a result of CFA, the X2/df ratio indicates moderate fit (Kline, 2005) RMSEA is 047 and this value indicates perfect fit (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996; Brown, 2006). Other fit indices were RMR=.026, SRMR=.038, NFI=.97, NNFI=.97, CFI=.98, IFI=.98, RFI=.97, GFI=.95, AGFI=.94. As a result of CFA, the fit indexes were found to be at a good level. The construct validity of the scale was found to be good according to the results of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. 3.4. Reliability Analysis Table-3. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of generalized expectancy for success scale. Factors Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient Individual Expectation .86 Social Interaction .78 Failure .71 General .87 Source: Obtained from primary data. When Table 3 is analyzed, it is seen that Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient of generalized expectancy for success scale is .86 for the first factor, .78 for the second factor, .71 for the third factor, and .87 for the whole of the scale. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 416-421 420 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 4. Conclusion and Discussion The adaptation of the generalized expectancy for success scale, which was developed by Fibel and Hale (1978) and revised by Hale et al. (1992) aiming at assessing university students’ generalized expectancy for success, was done for Turkish university students in terms of language equivalence, reliability and validity. Therefore, language validity was done firstly by using rejection translation method for Turkish language and its original language. The results have shown that the scale had language validity and translation period was implemented successfully. According to exploratory factor analysis’s results, the structure was consisted of three factors- 21 items, which explained 46, 6% of variance. The first factor was called as “Individual expectancy”, and it consisted of 11 items while the second factor called as “Social İnteraction” consisted of 5 items. The third factor was called as “Failure” and consisted of 5 items. The first dimension, Individual expectancy, is related to being successful, fulfilling its responsibilities, promoting, career goals, controlling yourself, achieving economic goals, managing personal life and expectancies for success at work. The second dimension –interpersonal interaction- is related to the expectancies e.g. having students listen themselves, interacting personally, first gaze, positive effect and connecting friendly. The dimension of “failure” is about negative features e.g. students’ fear of failure, hopelessness, studying oneself, non-achieving goals and planning badly. It has been resulted in the study that the model was fit in terms of fit index criteria for confirmatory factor analysis. According to reliability studies, it has been determined internal consistency of the scale was high and total item correlation was adequate. According to correlation analysis results, the relationship among dimensions of the scale was significant and it was resulted that there was no any multicollinearity problem. According to study results, it is determined that the adapted version of the scale is used as a reliable and valid instrument to assess the generalized expectancy for success of Turkish university students. The scale is also used to determine sub-dimensions e.g. individual expectancy, social interaction and failure as well as the generalized expectancy for success. It could be said that the usefulness of scale is high as implementing the scale and interpreting the results of it are easy because the scale is short. Nevertheless, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was done upon the same sample. Moreover, internal consistency data was analyzed for reliability studies of the scale, and reliability analysis was not done in terms of stability. However, the scale was not analyzed with comparing the similar another scale in terms of criteria validity. These limitations should be taken into consideration while using the generalized expectancy for success. It is thought that the scale should be implemented upon another sample in university, and the reliability of it should be analyzed in terms of test-retest method. Moreover, it is thought that analyzing criteria validity of the scale according to another similar scale should contribute to reliability and validity of the scale. References Bong, M., C. Cho, H.S. Ahn and H.J. Kim, 2012. Comparison of self-beliefs for predicting student motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5): 336-352.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627401. Brown, T.A., 2006. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford. Cokluk, O., G. Sekercioglu and Ş. Buyukozturk, 2012. Multivariate SPSS and LISREL applications for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem. Eccles-Parsons, J.S., T.F. Adler, R. Futterman, S.B. Goff, C.M. Kaczala, J.L. Meece and C. Midgley, 1983. Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. pp: 75-146. Eccles, J.S. and A. Wigfield, 1995. In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents' achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3): 215-225.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003. Ethington, C.A., 1991. A test of a model or achievement behaviors. American Educational Research Journal, 28: 155-172.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028001155. Fibel, B. and W. Hale, 1978. The generalized expectancy for success scale: A new measure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5): 924-931.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.46.5.924. Hale, W.D., L.R. Fiedler and C. Cochran, 1992. The revised generalized expectancy for success scale: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(4): 517-521.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199207)48:4<517::aid- jclp2270480413>3.0.co;2-z. Joreskog, K.G. and D. Sorbom, 1996. LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. Kalayci, Ş., 2010. SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. Ankara: Asil. Kline, P., 1994. An easy guide to factor analysis. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd Edn., NY: Guilford Publications, Inc. Meece, J.L., A. Wigfield and J.S. Eccles, 1990. Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1): 60-70.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60. Midkiff, R.M., J.P. Burke, J.P. Hunt and G.C. Ellison, 1986. Role of self-concept of academic attainment in achievement-related behaviors. Psychological Reports, 58(1): 151-159.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1986.58.1.151. Musu-Gillette, L.E., A. Wigfield, J.R. Harring and J.S. Eccles, 2015. Trajectories of change in students’ self-concepts of ability and values in math and college major choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(4): 343-370.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1057161. Nagengast, B., H.W. Marsh, L.F. Scalas, M.K. Xu, K.-T. Hau and U. Trautwein, 2011. Who took the “×” out of expectancy-value theory? A psychological mystery, a substantive-methodological synergy, and a cross-national generalization. Psychological Science, 22(8): 1058-1066.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611415540. Nevid, J.S. and S.A. Rathus, 2007. Psychology and the challenges of life: Adjustment in the new millennium. 10th Edn., Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley. Parsons, J., T. Adler and J. Meece, 1984. Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1): 26-43.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.26. Pintrich, P. and D. Schunk, 1996. The role of expectancy and self-efficacy beliefs. Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rathus, S.A. and J.S. Nevid, 1995. Adjustment and growth: Psychology and the challenges of life. 6th Edn., Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Shepherd, L., 2014. The relationship between gender, study habits, plans after college and generalized expectancy for success and frequency of self-reinforcement. PSYC 450 Project, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA. Simpkins, S.D., P.E. Davis-Kean and J.S. Eccles, 2006. Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1): 70-83.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70. Simsek, Ö.F., 2007. Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications. Ankara: Ekinoks. Snyder, C., H.S. Shorey, J. Cheavens, K.M. Pulvers, V.H. Adams and C. Wiklund, 2002. Hope and academic success in college. Journal uf Educational Psycholgy, 94(4): 820-326.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.820. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 416-421 421 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Story, P.A., J.W. Hart, M.F. Stasson and J.M. Mahoney, 2009. Using a two-factor theory of achievement motivation to examine performance-based outcomes and self-regulatory processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4): 391-395.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.023. Tabachnick, B.G. and L.S. Fidell, 2007. Using multivariate statistics. 5th Edn., Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc./Allyn and Bacon. Wigfield, A., 1994. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1): 49-78.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02209024. Wigfield, A. and J.S. Eccles, 2000. Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1): 68- 81.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015. Wigfield, A. and J.R. Gladstone, 2019. What does expectancy-value theory have to say about motivation and achievement in times of change and uncertainty? In Motivation in education at a time of global change: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice. Emerald Publishing Limited. pp: 15-32. Yong, F.L., 2010. A study on the self-efficacy and expectancy for success of pre-university students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4): 514-524. 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.