Adaptation of the “Design Thinker Profile” Scale into Turkish

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 39 - 62, 28.06.2024

Ayça Uğur , Kemal Özkan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.62393/aurum.1480826

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to adapt the scale called "Design Thinker Profile Scale" developed by Chesson (2017) into Turkish in order to evaluate the approaches of employees in Turkey towards human-centered design and to conduct a validity and reliability study of this scale. The original scale is in English and is a 6-point Likert type scale consisting of 27 items and 3 dimensions. The scale was first translated into Turkish by 6 academicians who were fluent in Turkish and English, later, the scale was back-translated by 2 academicians who were fluent in Turkish and English and based on these translations, the Turkish items of the scale were decided. In the linguistic equivalence study conducted with 30 participants fluent in Turkish and English, the correlation coefficient between Turkish and English forms was found to be over 0.90. In the pilot study conducted with 50 participants, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was above 0.70 and the item-total correlation coefficients were above 0.30. In the large sample application conducted with 419 participants, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient value of the Turkish adaptation scale was 0.97 and the composite reliability coefficient value was 0.98. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis conducted within the scope of a large sample to determine construct validity, it was seen that the adapted scale had acceptable fit.

Keywords

design thinking, human-centered design, adaptation, new product/service

Ethical Statement

Researchers declare that they pay attention to all ethical principles and rules in the collection, analysis and reporting of data. For the research conducted within the scope of the doctoral thesis, Ethics Committee approval was received from Istanbul Kültür University Ethics Committee on 12.10.2023 with decision number 2023/119. This article was written as a part of the doctoral thesis and produced from the unpublished doctoral thesis of the corresponding author.

“Design Thinker Profile – İnsan Odaklı Tasarım” Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de ki çalışanların insan odaklı tasarıma yönelik yaklaşımlarını değerlendirmek amacıyla Chesson (2017) tarafından geliştirilen “Design Thinker Profile – İnsan Odaklı Tasarım” isimli ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik analizleri de yapılarak Türkçeye uyarlanmasıdır. Orijinal ölçek, İngilizce olup 27 maddeden ve 3 boyuttan oluşan 6’lı Likert tipi bir ölçektir. Ölçek, ilk olarak Türkçe ve İngilizce diline hakim 6 akademisyen tarafından Türkçeye çevrilmiştir, daha sonra ölçeğin, Türkçe ve İngilizce diline hakim 2 akademisyen tarafından geri çevirisi yapılmıştır ve bu çevirilere dayanarak ölçeğin Türkçe maddelerine karar verilmiştir. Türkçe ve İngilizce diline hakim 30 katılımcıyla yapılan dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında Türkçe ve İngilizce formlar arasındaki korelasyon katsayısı 0,90’ın üzerinde bulunmuştur. 50 katılımcıyla yapılan pilot çalışmada Cronbach Alfa güvenirlilik katsayısı 0,70’in üzerinde, madde-toplam korelasyon katsayıları ise 0,30’un üzerinde çıkmıştır. 419 katılımcıyla gerçekleştirilen büyük örneklem uygulamasında Türkçe uyarlama ölçeğinin Cronbach Alfa güvenirlilik katsayı değeri 0,97, kompozit güvenirlilik katsayısı değeri ise 0,98 olarak bulunmuştur. Yapı geçerliliğini belirlemek için büyük örneklem kapsamında yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda uyarlanan ölçeğin kabul edilebilir uyuma sahip olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

tasarım odaklı düşünme, insan odaklı tasarım, uyarlama, yeni ürün/hizmet

Ethical Statement

Araştırmacılar verilerin toplanması, analizi ve raporlanmasında tüm etik ilke ve kurallara dikkat ettiklerini beyan ederler. Doktora tezi kapsamında yapılan araştırma için İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu’ndan 12.10.2023’de 2023/119 sayılı karar numarası ile Etik Kurul onayı alınmıştır. Bu makale çalışması doktora tezinin bir parçası olarak yapılmıştır ve sorumlu yazarın yayınlanmamış doktora tezinden üretilmiştir.

References

• Aflatoony, L. (2015). Development, implementation, and evaluation of an interaction design thinking course in the context of secondary education (Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University). Simon Fraser University. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/16524.
• Baran, E., & AlZoubi, D. (2020). Human-centered design as a frame for transition to remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 365-372.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
• Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29
• Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review.
• Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. https://doi. org/10.2307/1511637
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirme kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
• Chasanidou, D., Gasparini, A. A., & Lee, E. (2015, August 2–7). Design thinking methods and tools for innovation. Design, user experience, and usability: Design discourse. 4th International Conference, DUXU 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015. Los Angeles, CA, USA, Proceedings, Part I, 12-23. Springer International Publishing.
• Chesson, D. (2017). Design thinker profile: Creating and validating a scale for measuring design thinking capabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University). Antioch University Repository & Archive Open Access to Scholarly Research. https://aura.antioch.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1398&context=etds
• Cooley, M.(1996) Onhuman-machinesymbiosis. K. S. Gill. (Eds). Humanmachinesymbiosis: Thefoundations of human-centred systems design (pp. 69-100), London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4471-3247-9_2
• Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5-10. https://doi. org/10.2307/1511837
• Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.
• Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2024). What is design thinking and why is it so popular? Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so- popular
• Dorst, K. (2018). Mixing practices to create transdisciplinary innovation: A design-based approach. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(8), 60-65.
• Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512-523.
• Efeoglu, A., Moller, C., Serie, M., & Boer, H. (2013). Design thinking: characteristics and promises. Proceedings 14th International CINet Conference on Business Development and Co-creation (pp. 241-256). Continuous Innovation Network. http://www.continuous-innovation.net/
• Faste, R. A., Roth, B., & Wilde, D. J. (1993). Integrating creativity into the mechanical engineering curriculum. ASME Resource Guide to Innovation in Engineering Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
• Gottlieb, M., Wagner, E., Wagner, A., & Chan, T. (2017). Applying design thinking principles to curricular development in medical education. AEM Education and Training, 1(1), 21-26.
• Guaman-Quintanilla, S., Everaert, P., Chiluiza, K., & Valcke, M. (2023). Impact of design thinking in higher education: A multi-actor perspective on problem solving and creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(1), 217-240.
• Güler, N., & Taşdelen Teker, G. (2015). Açık uçlu maddelerde farklı yaklaşımlarla elde edilen puanlayıcılar arası güvenirliğin değerlendirilmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 6(1), 12-24.
• Gwangwava, N. (2021). Learning design thinking through a hands-on learning model. International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (IJITLHE), 2(1), 1-19.
• Hair, J., F., Black W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
• Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011a). Conceptions of design thinking in the design and management discourses. Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th world conference on design research, Delft, (pp. 1-10).
• Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011b). Design thinking in the management discourse: Defining the elements of the concept. 18th International Product Development Management Conference, IPDMC, (pp. 1-14).
• Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011c). Making sense of design thinking. T.-M. Karjalainen, M. Koria, & M. Salimäki (Eds.), IDBM papers, 1, (pp. 50-63). Aalto University.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43, 115-135.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• IDEO.org (2015). The field guide to human-centered design. Design Kit. https://www.designkit.org/ resources/1.html
• ISO (2023). ISO 9241-210:2019 (en) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. ISO. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-2:v1:en
• İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (yem) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5(2), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.31126
• Karaman, M. (2023). Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi: Kavramsal bir çalışma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.1279602
• Kaynak, Z. N. (2012). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri (Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi). Ulusal Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=O5PrWLDXF_ jZj6gSRB2LBw&no=Be27ieGRTsC5lDqJF3CL0g
• Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Crown Currency.
• Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. Currency.
• Kimbell, L. (2009, September). Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. CRESC Conference, Manchester (pp. 1-15).
• Kolko, J. (2015). Design thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review.
• Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2014). Empathy via design thinking: creation of sense and knowledge. H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer, (Eds.). Design thinking research (pp. 15-28). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. Architectural Press.
• Liedtka, J. (2017). Exploring the impact of design thinking in action. Darden Working Paper Series.
• Lor, R. (2017). Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature. Conference Proceedings, International Academic Conference on Social Sciences and Management, Asian Conference on Education and Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand.
• Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 5(2), 63-74.
• Lund, D. R. (2014). Design thinking collaboration: Changing how companies solve problems (Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota). University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. https://hdl.handle. net/11299/168129
• Malaspina, O., Malaspina, M., & Malaspina, U. (2018). Developing an innovative mindset in future teachers through design thinking and game invention. ICERI2018 Proceedings. IATED.
• McKim, R. H. (1972). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
• Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 162-166.
• Morehen, J., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2013, December). Teaching design thinking and design led innovation to non-designers: A tertiary facilitator multidisciplinary study. 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International Design Management Symposium (pp. 55-63). IEEE.
• Mueller-Roterberg, C. (2018). Handbook of design thinking. Tips & Tools for how to design thinking, Kindle Direct Publishing.
• Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
• Öztürk, A. (2016). Tasarım eğitiminde disiplinlerarası yaklaşımlar ve tasarımcı düşünüş modeli. Uluslararası Disiplinlerarası ve Kültürlerarası Sanat, 1(1), 57-72.
• Parizi, R., Prestes, M., Marczak, S., & Conte, T. (2022). How has design thinking being used and integrated into software development activities? A systematic mapping. Journal of Systems and Software, 187, 111217.
• Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. The MIT Press.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Seçer, İ. (2021). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Anı Yayıncılık. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson.
• Thompson, C. F., Goldwasser, E., Stanford, J., Syverson, B., & Haley, K. (2017). Tweaking design thinking for strategic and tactical impact. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1303-1306).
• Udoewa, V., & Maier, A. (2021). Agile corps - a public service-learning program part II: Pilot. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 58-89.
• Van Doorn, F., & Klapwijk, R. (2013, 14-16 May). Human-centered design in primary schools: A method to develop empathy with and knowledge of the needs of elderly. DRS // Cumulus: Design Learning for Tomorrow, Oslo, Norway.
• Waidelich, L., Richter, A., Kölmel, B., & Bulander, R. (2018). Design thinking process model review. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Stuttgart, Germany, 1-9. IEEE.
• Weeby, J. (2018). Creating more effective, efficient, and equitable education policies with human- centered design. Bellwether Education Partners.
• Westland, J. C. (2015). Structural equation models. From paths to networks (1st ed., Vol. 22). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16507-3
• Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care, 8(3), 1-13.
• Yalçın, S. (2021). Ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci bilgi notu. Ankara Üniversitesi-Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. http://egitim.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/347/2021/06/Olcek-Gelistirme- ve-Uyarlama.Bilgi-notu.-Doc.-Dr.-Seher-Yalcin.pdf
• Zhu, Q., & Luo, J. (2023). Toward artificial empathy for human-centered design: A framework. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.