Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding artificial intelligence competencies: Turkish adaptation and psychometric validation of the TAICS scale

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the Teachers’ Artificial Intelligence Competence Self-Efficacy Scale (TAICS), developed by Chiu et al. (2025), into Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties within the Turkish educational context. The study was designed as a methodological scale adaptation and psychometric validation study. The adaptation process included forward translation, translation review, back-translation, linguistic refinement, expert evaluation, pilot testing, and main validation analyses. Five separate study groups, consisting of field experts, language experts, pre-service English language teachers, pilot participants, and teachers from different school levels and subject areas, contributed to the process. The main validation sample comprised 449 teachers. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original six-factor structure of the scale, consisting of AI Knowledge, AI Pedagogy, AI Assessment, AI Ethics, Human-Centred Education, and Professional Engagement. The second-order CFA findings further indicated that these dimensions could be represented under a higher-order construct of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding AI competencies. Reliability analyses showed that Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and composite reliability coefficients were satisfactory for both the subscales and the total score. Convergent validity was supported, whereas discriminant validity findings indicated substantial empirical overlap among some theoretically related dimensions. Measurement invariance analyses further supported the comparability of the scale across gender. Overall, the Turkish version of the TAICS Scale provides psychometric evidence supporting its use for assessing teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding AI competencies in Türkiye.

Keywords

• Artificial intelligence
• Self-efficacy beliefs
• Teacher competencies
• Cultural adaptation
• Psychometric validation

Ethical Statement

Ordu University, Ethics Committee Number: 2026-30.

References

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2. Ayre, C., & Scally, A.J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
3. Bacon, D.R., Sauer, P.L., & Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in structural equations modelling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 394 406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055003003
4. Bandalos, D.L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. The Guilford Press.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
6. Barrey, B. (2015). 100 questions (and answers) about tests and measurement. SAGE.
7. Bartholomew, D.J., Knott, M., & Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor analysis: A unified approach (3rd ed.). Wiley.
8. Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M.B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186 3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

9. Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 149 159. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/binns18a.html
10. Blunch, N.J. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
11. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
12. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). SAGE Publications.
13. Byrne, B.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
14. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Publications Office of the European Union.
15. Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
16. Chiu, T.K.F., Ahmad, Z., & Çoban, M. (2025). Development and validation of teacher artificial intelligence (AI) competence self-efficacy (TAICS) scale. Education and Information Technologies, 30(5), 6667–6685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13094-z
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
19. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
20. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
21. DeVellis, R.F., & Thorpe, C.T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
22. Dunn, T.J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412.
23. Etikan, I., Musa, S.A., & Alkassim, R.S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1 4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
24. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
25. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
26. Garson, G.D. (2013). Validity and reliability. Statistical Associates Publishers.
27. Garson, G.D. (2021). Data analytics for the social sciences: Applications in R. Routledge.
28. Garson, G.D. (2023). Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R: A social scientist’s toolkit. Routledge.
29. Gay, L. R., & Mills, G. E. (2018). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (12th ed.). Pearson
30. Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J.R.M., & Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
31. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (7th ed.). Pearson.
32. Hair, J.F., Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
33. Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
34. Hambleton, R.K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R.K. Hambleton, P.F. Merenda, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611758
35. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
36. Hatlevik, I.K.R., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2018). Examining the relationship between teachers’ ıct self-efficacy for educational purposes, collegial collaboration, lack of facilitation and the use of ICT in teaching practice. Front. Psychol. 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00935
37. 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(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
38. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Centre for Curriculum Redesign.
39. Holmes, W., Persson, J., Chounta, I.-A., Wasson, B., & Dimitrova, V. (2022). Artificial intelligence and education: A critical view through the lens of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/artificial intelligence and education a critical view through the lens/1680a886bd
40. 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
41. Huang, D., & Li, W. (2025). The impact of AI technology integration and digital innovation self-efficacy on vocational students’ adaptability: Dual moderation by innovation competition intensity. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(8), 1524–1537. https://doi.org/10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9646
42. Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D.J. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development. Wiley.
43. Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
44. Johnson, R.L., & Morgan, G.B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. The Guilford Press.
45. Kane, M.T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.
46. Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge.
47. Kline, R.B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
48. Lane, S., Raymond, M.R., & Haladyna, T.M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of test development (2nd ed.). Routledge.
49. Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
50. Loehlin, J.C., & Beaujean, A.A. (2017). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis (5th ed.). Routledge.
51. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, L.B., & Forcier, L.B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed. An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
52. Mansur, S. (2025). AI literacy as a foundation for digital citizenship in education. Journal of Teacher Education and Research. Advance online publication. https://www.jter.in/index.php/JTER/article/view/305
53. Mardia, K.V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
54. McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084
56. Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
57. Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/PCSP7350
58. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
59. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
60. OECD. (2019a). OECD future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/1-1-learning-compass/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
61. OECD. (2019b). OECD skills outlook 2019: Thriving in a digital world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en
62. OECD. (2019c). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
63. OECD (2023). Digital education outlook.
64. O’Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). SAS Institute
65. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators (DigCompEdu). European Commission.
66. Reise, S.P., & Revicki, D.A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of item response theory modelling: Applications to typical performance assessment. Routledge.
67. Roos, J.M., & Bauldry, S. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis. SAGE Publications.
68. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
69. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
70. Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge.
71. Schunk, D.H., & DiBenedetto, M.K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, Article 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
72. Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Psychological test development and adaptation process: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Anı Yayıncılık.
73. Shi, S., & Zhang, H. (2025). EFL students’ motivation predicted by their self-efficacy and resilience in an artificial intelligence (AI)-based context: From a self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Motivation, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102151
74. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
75. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
76. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2017). A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind the gap! Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 46–60.
77. UNESCO. (2018). ICT competency framework for teachers. UNESCO.
78. UNESCO. (2022). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
79. UNICEF. (2022). Educators’ digital competency framework. UNICEF Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia.
80. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
81. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
82. Wang, L., & Wang, L. (2025). Exploring enjoyment, motivation, self-efficacy, and engagement in AI-assisted English learning: A self-determination theory approach. Learning and Motivation, 92, 102197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102197
83. Wang, Y.Y., & Chuang, Y.E. (2024). Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation. Education and İnformation Technologies, 29, 4785 4808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w
84. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V.I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0