3 Boyutlu Yazıcı Kabul Modeli Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi, Geçerliliği ve Güvenilirliği

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ergoterapi öğrencilerinin 3 boyutlu yazıcı teknolojisine yönelik tutum ve kabul düzeylerini değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı geliştirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde Teknoloji Kabul Modeli temel alınarak literatür taraması yapıldı ve madde havuzu oluşturuldu. Uzman görüşleri ile maddeler düzenlendi, ardından pilot uygulama gerçekleştirildi. Çalışmaya katılan 114 ergoterapi öğrencisi sosyodemografik bilgi formu ve 3 Boyutlu Yazıcı Kabul Modeli Ölçeğini tamamlandı. Ölçek yapı geçerliği Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile; güvenirliğini ise Cronbach's alpha iç-tutarlılık katsayısı ve test-tekrar testi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ölçek maddelerinin ortalama puan aralığı 1,84-4,29 olarak bulundu. AFA sonucunda ölçeğin üç faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğu belirlendi. DFA sonuçları ölçeğin iyi uyum sağladığını gösterdi (RMSEA=0,052; NNFI (TLI)=0,977; CMIN/DF=1,281; CFI=0,982). Cronbach’s alpha katsayısı 0,863 olarak bulundu ve ölçeğin yüksek iç tutarlılığa sahip olduğu görüldü. Alt faktörlere ilişkin test-tekrar test analizlerinde anlamlı düzeyde korelasyon saptandı: Algılanan Kullanışlılık (r=0,848; p<0,001), Algılanan Kullanım Kolaylığı (r=0,925; p<0,001) ve Kullanıma Yönelik Tutum ve Niyet (r=0,703; p<0,001). Tartışma: Elde edilen bulgular, geliştirilen 3 Boyutlu Yazıcı Kabul Modeli Ölçeği’nin, ergoterapi öğrencilerinin bu teknolojiye yönelik tutum ve kabul düzeylerini ölçmek amacıyla kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Öğrenciler
• Tutum
• Yardımcı teknoloji
• 3 boyutlu yazıcı

Development, Validity, and Reliability of the 3D Printer Acceptance Model Scale

Abstract

Objectıves: The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess occupational therapy students' attitudes and acceptance levels toward 3D printer technology. Materials and Methods: Based on the Technology Acceptance Model, a literature review was conducted and an item pool was created during the scale development process. Items were revised based on expert opinions, and a pilot study was subsequently carried out. A total of 114 occupational therapy students completed a sociodemographic information form and the 3D Printer Acceptance Model Scale. The construct validity of the scale was evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA); its reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient and test-retest analysis. Results: The mean item scores ranged from 1.84 to 4.29. The EFA revealed a three-factor structure. The CFA results indicated a good model fit (RMSEA=0.052; NNFI/TLI=0.977; CMIN/DF=1.281; CFI=0.982). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.863, indicating high internal consistency. Significant correlations were found in test-retest analyses for the sub-factors: Perceived Usefulness (r=0.848; p<0.001), Perceived Ease of Use (r=0.925; p<0.001), and Attitude and Intention to Use (r=0.703; p<0.001). Conclusion: The findings indicate that the developed 3D Printer Acceptance Model Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing occupational therapy students' attitudes and acceptance levels toward 3D printer technology.

Keywords

• Students
• Attitude
• Printing
• Three-Dimensional

References

1. Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. IJACSA, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120
2. Asselin, S. B. (2014). Learning and assistive technologies for college transition. J. Vocat. Rehabil., 40(3), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140687
3. Bagaria, V., Chaudhary, K., & Shah, S. (2015). Technical note: 3D printing and developing patient optimized rehabilitation tools (PORT)-A technological leap. NeuroRehabilitation, 2(3), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2376-0281.1000175
4. Benham, S., Bush, J., & Curley, B. (2022). 3D printing applications through peer-assisted learning and interprofessional education approaches. FoHPE, 23(3), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i3.591
5. Benham, S., & San, S. (2020). Student technology acceptance of 3D printing in occupational therapy education. AJOT, 74(3). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.035402
6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
7. Davis, K., & Gurney, L. (2021). Impact of 3D printing on occupational therapy student technology efficacy. IJTES, 5(4), 571-586. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.278
8. Değerli, Y. İ., Torpil, B., Pekçetin, E., & Pekçetin, S. (2024). The effectiveness of 3d printing technology course on attitudes of occupational therapy students-a controlled study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2416069

9. Ercan, İ., & Kan, İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 211-216.
10. Erdem, H. K. (2011). Kurumsal Kaynak Planlama Sistemlerinin Kullanımında Etkili Olan Faktörlerin Genişletilmiş Teknoloji Kabul Modeli Ile Incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
11. Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J. Biomed. Inform., 43(1), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002
12. Jacobs, J. V., Hettinger, L. J., Huang, Y.-H., Jeffries, S., Lesch, M. F., Simmons, L. A., et al. (2019). Employee acceptance of wearable technology in the workplace. Appl. Ergon., 78, 148-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.03.003
13. Kim, J., & Park, H.-A. (2012). Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. Journal of medical Internet research, 14(5), e2143. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2143
14. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 43(6), 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
15. Lancioni, G. E., Sigafoos, J., O'Reilly, M. F., & Singh, N. N. (2012). Assistive technology: Interventions for individuals with severe/profound and multiple disabilities. Springer Science & Business Media.
16. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. CAIS, 12(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01250
17. Moraiti, A., Vanden Abeele, V., Vanroye, E., & Geurts, L. (2015). Empowering occupational therapists with a DIY-toolkit for smart soft objects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680598
18. Prato, S. C., & Britton, L. (2015). Digital fabrication technology in the library: Where we are and where we are going. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bul2.2015.1720420106
19. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C.-M., & Martínez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Hum. Comput., 64(8), 683-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003 Schaper, L. K., & Pervan, G. P. (2007). ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int. J. Med. Inform., 76, S212-S221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.028
20. Simpson, R. C. (2021). An interdisciplinary assistive technology minor. Assist. technol., 33(3), 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1906434
21. Surendran, P. (2012). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. IJBSR, 2(4), 175-178.
22. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6): pearson Boston, MA.
23. Taherdoost, H. (2017). Understanding of e-service security dimensions and its effect on quality and intention to use. ICS, 25(5), 535-559. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-09-2016-0074
24. Taherdoost, H., Sahibuddin, S., Namayandeh, M., Jalaliyoon, N., Kalantari, A., & Chaeikar, S. S. (2012). Smart card adoption model: Social and ethical perspectives. Science, 3(4).
25. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ., 57(2), 1645-1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002
26. Tsai, P.-S., Tsai, C.-C., & Hwang, G.-H. (2010). Elementary school students' attitudes and self-efficacy of using PDAs in a ubiquitous learning context. AJET, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1076
27. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
28. Walker, B. A. (2014). The acceptance and use of virtual gaming as an intervention strategy for older adults in occupational therapy. Games health j, 3(6), 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2014.0062
29. Wright, P. W. (2004). The individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004. Wrightslaw. com, www. wrightslaw. com/idea/idea.
30. Yuran, A. F., & Yavuz, İ. (2021). Endüstri 4.0 ve 3 Boyutlu Yazıcıların Karşılaştırılması. Mühendis ve Makina, 62(704), 580-606. https://doi.org/10.46399/muhendismakina.910501
31. Wolf, M., & McQuitty, S. (2011). Understanding the do-it-yourself consumer: DIY motivations and outcomes. AMS review, 1, 154-170