Yaşlıların Teknolojiye Yönelik Tutumlarını Ölçmek için Yeni Bir Aracın (TechPH) Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerliliği ve Güvenirliği

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 100 - 111, 30.08.2025

Ebru Sönmez Sarı , Vahide Semerci Çakmak

Abstract

Amaç: Özel bakım ve izlem gereken yaşlı yetişkinlerin teknolojiye yönelik tutum ve ilgilerinin belirlenmesi, bakımın ve sağlanacak
diğer hizmetlerin planlanması ve uygulanmasını etkiler. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Yaşlıların Teknolojiye Yönelik Tutumlarını Ölçmek
için Yeni Bir Aracın (TechPH) orijinal 6 maddelik formunun Türk popülasyonunda güvenilirliğini ve geçerliliğini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu araştırma, metodolojik kesitsel bir tasarıma sahip olup, Türkiye’nin Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi’ndeki bir
ilde toplum içinde yaşayan 300 yaşlıdan oluşan bir örneklemle yürütülmüştür.
Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 71,08±5,71 yıl (65-90) idi. Katılımcıların çoğu erkek (%71,3) ve ilkokul mezunu (%42,7)
idi. TechPH’nin kapsam geçerlilik indeksi 0,97’dir. Ölçeğin iki faktörlü modelinin doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) mükemmel
bir uyum ortaya koymuştur. Ölçeğin Cronbach alfa güvenilirlik katsayısının 0,71 olduğu bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin DFA model uyum
indeks değerleri ki-kare minimum (CMIN) =16.913, serbestlik derecesi (DF) =8, CMIN/DF = 2.114, kare-kök ortalama artık
=0,048, uyum iyiliği indeksi =0,98, normalleştirilmiş uyum indeksi =0,94, Tucker-Lewis indeks =0,94 ve karşılaştırmalı uyum
indeksi =0,97 olarak bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: TechPH Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu ve yaşlı yetişkinlerin teknolojiye yönelik tutumlarını
ölçmek amacıyla sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından kullanılmaya uygun olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Yaşlı Yetişkinler , Psikometrik , Güvenilirlik , Teknoloji , Geçerlilik

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Novel Instrument for Measuring Older People’s Attitudes Towards Technology (TechPH)

Abstract

Aim: Determining attitudes and interests of older adults, who require special care and monitoring, towards technology affects the
planning and application of care and other services to be provided. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of
the original 6-item form of the Novel Instrument for Measuring Older People’s Attitudes Toward Technology (TechPH) among the
Turkish population.
Materials and Methods: This study has a methodological cross-sectional design and was conducted with a sample of 300
community-dwelling older adults in a province in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Türkiye.
Results: The average age of the participants was 71.08±5.71 years (65-90). Most of the participants were male (71.3%) and primary
school graduates (42.7%). The content validity index of the TechPH is 0.97. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the two-factor
model of the scale revealed an excellent fit. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.71. CFA model
fit index values of the scale were found to be chi-square minimum (CMIN) =16,913, degrees of freedom (DF) =8, CMIN/DF =2,114,
root mean square residual =0.048, goodness of fit index =0.98, normed fit index =0.94, Tucker-Lewis index =0.94 and comparative
fit index =0.97.
Conclusion: It was concluded that the Turkish version of the TechPH is a valid and reliable instrument and is suitable to be used
by health professionals to measure older adults’ attitudes towards technology.

Keywords

Older Adults , Psychometrics , Reliability , Technology , Validity

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval (Bayburt University Ethics Committee, date: 16.12.2022/decision no: 315-13) and institutional permission were obtained for the study.

References

• 1. Free C, Phillips G, Galli L, et al. The effectiveness of mobilehealth technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2013; 10:e1001362.
• 2. Kim J, Park HA. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14:e133.
• 3. Guzman-Parra J, Barnestein-Fonseca P, Guerrero-Pertiñez G, et al. Attitudes and use of information and communication technologies in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or early stages of dementia and their caregivers: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22: e17253.
• 4. Zhao YC, Zhao M, Song S. Online health information seeking behaviors among older adults: systematic scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24: e34790.
• 5. Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010; 26: 1710-1721.
• 6. Khalaila R, Vitman-Schorr A. Internet use, social networks, loneliness, and quality of life among adults aged 50 and older: mediating and moderating effects. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 479- 489.
• 7. Lee HY, Kim J, Sharratt M. Technology use and its association with health and depressive symptoms in older cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 467-477.
• 8. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging. 2006; 21: 333-352.
• 9. Kruse C, Fohn J, Wilson N, et al. Utilization barriers and medicaloutcomes commensurate with the use of telehealth among older adults: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2020; 8: e20359.
• 10. Vassli LT, Farshchian BA. Acceptance of health-related ICT among elderly people living in the community: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2018; 34: 99-116.
• 11. Özkan Y, Purutçuoğlu E. Socialization process effecting technological innovation acceptance in old ages. J Soc Policy Stud. 2010; 23: 37-46.
• 12. Yıldırım Becerikli S. Communication differences between generations: a focus group study through science, technology and innovation news. J Selcuk Commun. 2013; 8: 5-18.
• 13. Anderberg P, Eivazzadeh S, Berglund JS. A novel instrument for measuring older people’s attitudes toward technology (TechPH): development and validation. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21: e13951.
• 14. Dura-Perez E, Goodman-Casanova JM, Vega-Nuñez A, et al. The impact of COVID-19 confinement on cognition and mental health and technology use among socially vulnerable older people: retrospective cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24: e30598.
• 15. Ronit P. Technophilia: A new model for technology adoption. In: UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings; 2011.
• 16. Anderberg P, Björling G, Stjernberg L, et al. Analyzing nursing students’ relation to electronic health and technology as individuals and students and in their future career (the eNursEd study): protocol for a longitudinal study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019; 8: e14643.
• 17. Zobair KM, Sanzogni L, Houghton L, et al. Health seekers’ acceptance and adoption determinants of telemedicine in emerging economies. Australas J Inf Syst. 2021; 25.
• 18. Jewer J. Patients’ intention to use online postings of ED wait times: a modified UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform. 2018; 112: 34-39.
• 19. Claes V, Devriendt E, Tournoy J, et al. Attitudes and perceptions of adults of 60 years and older towards in-home monitoring of the activities of daily living with contactless sensors: an explorative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52: 134-148.
• 20. Steele R, Lo A, Secombe C, et al. Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int J Med Inform. 2009; 78: 788-801.
• 21. Terkeş N, Bektaş H. Elderly health and use of technology. Dokuz Eylul Univ Fac Nurs Electron J. 2016; 9: 153-159.
• 22. Turkiye Statistical Institute. Statistics on the Elderly, 2021. Published 2021. Accessed March 18, 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/ Index?p=Elderly-Statistics-2021-45636
• 23. von Gerich H, Moen H, Block LJ, et al. Artificial intelligence-based technologies in nursing: a scoping literature review of the evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022; 127: 104153.
• 24. Haupeltshofer A, Egerer V, Seeling S. Promoting health literacy: what potential does nursing informatics offer to support older adults in the use of technology? A scoping review. Health Informatics J. 2020; 26: 2707-2721.
• 25. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Basic principles of scale development. Med Educ World. 2014; 40: 39-49.
• 26. World Health Organization (WHO). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Published 2017. Accessed March 18, 2024. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/ translation/en/
• 27. Çam MO, Baysan-Arabacı L. Qualitative and quantitative steps on attitude scale construction. Turk J Res Dev Nurs. 2010; 12: 59-71.
• 28. Şencan H. Reliability validity in social and behavioral measures. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing; 2005.
• 29. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992; 5: 194-197.
• 30. Tavşancıl E. Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS. 3rd ed. Ankara: Nobel Publications; 2006.
• 31. Gürbüz S, Şahin F. Research methods in social sciences: philosophymethod- analysis. 4th ed. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing; 2017.
• 32. Karagöz Y, Bardakçı S. Measurement tools and scale development used in scientific research. Ankara: Nobel Publishing; 2020.
• 33. Özdamar K. Statistical data analysis with package programs. 9th ed. Ankara: Nobel Publishing; 2013.
• 34. Bayram N. Introduction to structural equation modeling. Bursa: Ekin Publishing House; 2010.
• 35. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2013: 497-516.
• 36. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008; 6: 53-60.
• 37. Simon D, Kriston L, Loh A, et al. Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy-Preference- Index (API). Health Expect. 2010; 13: 234-243.
• 38. Çapık C, Gozum S, Aksayan S. Intercultural scale adaptation stages, language and culture adaptation: updated guideline. Florence Nightingale J Nurs. 2018; 26: 199-210.
• 39. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2021.
• 40. Johnson B, Christensen L. Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. 3rd ed California: SAGE Publications; 2014.
• 41. Seçer İ. Psychological test development and adaptation process; SPSS and LISREL applications. 2nd ed. Ankara: Anı Publishing; 2018.
• 42. Cheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manag. 2024; 41: 745-783.
• 43. Aksayan S, Gozum S. A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale-II: psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison. J Res Dev Nurs. 2003; 5: 3-14.
• 44. Kalaycı Ş. SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. Ankara: Asil Publication Distribution; 2010.
• 45. Kılıç S. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2016; 6: 47-48.
• 46. Büyüköztürk Ş. Data analysis handbook for social sciences: statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation. Ankara: Pegem Academy; 2011.