Bilime ve Bilim İnsanına Güven Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik- Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2023, , 1026 - 1054, 02.01.2024

Cemile Elvan Öğünmez , Elif Benzer

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1330728

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Nadelson ve diğerleri (2014) tarafından geliştirilen “Trust in Science and Scientists Inventory”nin ortaokul öğrencilerinin anlayabileceği sadelikte Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasıyla elde edilen “Bilime ve Bilim İnsanlarına Güven Ölçeği”nin geçerlik- güvenirlik çalışması yapılmıştır. Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi sonucunda toplam 16 madde içeren iki faktörlü ölçeğin açıkladığı toplam varyans %57,442 olarak bulunmuştur. Faktörlerin içsel tutarlılıklarının hesaplanmasında Cronbach α değerleri kullanılmıştır (bu değerler sırasıyla 0,928; 0,814). Ölçeğin tamamı için Cronbach α iç tutarlık katsayısı 0,822 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ardından Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılarak iki faktörlü modelin verilerle uyum gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları Türkçe’ye uyarlanan ölçeğin, eğitim alanında ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Güven, bilime güven, bilim insanlarına güven, ölçek uyarlanması

Adaptation of "Trust in Science and Scientists Scale" into Turkish: Validity-Reliability Study

Öz

This study investigates the validity and reliability of the scale which was obtained by adapting the "Trust in Science and Scientists Inventory" developed by Nadelson et al. into Turkish simplified for middle school students to understand. As a result of the Exploratory Factor Analysis, the total variance accounted for by the two-factor scale containing a total of 16 items was found 57.442%. Cronbach α values were used to calculate the internal consistency of the factors (0.928 and 0.814, respectively). The Cronbach α internal consistency coefficient for the whole scale was calculated as 0.822. Then, Confirmatory Factor Analysis suggested that the two-factor model was compatible with the data. The results of the study show that the scale adapted into Turkish is a valid and reliable educational measurement tool for middle school students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

trust, trust in science, trust in scientists, scale adaptation

Kaynakça

• Abraham, T. (2004). Twenty-first century plague: The story of SARS. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Akkurt, S. B. (2022). How do different threat types caused by COVID-19 affect trust in science through issue ownership beliefs? [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kadir Has University.
• Ataç, O., & Aker, A. A. (2014). Aşı karşıtlığı [Vaccine opposition]. Sağlık Düşüncesi ve Tıp Kültürü Dergisi [Journal of Health Thought and Medical Culture], 30(1), 42-47.
• Badur, S. (2021). Truth and wrongs in the COVID-19 pandemic period. Society and the Physician, 36(3), 180-189. https://www.acarindex.com/pdfler/acarindex-fdfdf7800d1e421f06256f91b230385f.pdf
• Balcı, A. (2022). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma, yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler [Research, methods, techniques and principles in social sciences] (16th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
• Bennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., & Levine-Findley, S. (2010). Team science and collaboration: A field guide. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Bennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., Ataseven, L., & Yılmaz, R. (2013). Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. Bilgi Dünyası, 14(2), 420-439. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2013.131
• Blankenship, B. T., & Stewart, A. J. (2019). Threat, trust, and Trump: Identity and voting in the 2016 presidential election. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(3), 724-736. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1633932
• Broughton, S. H., & Nadelson, L. S. (2012). Food for thought: Pre-service teachers’ knowledge, emotions, and attitudes toward genetically modified foods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association. National Conference.
• Bryce, J., & Fraser, J. (2014). The role of disclosure of personal information in the evaluation of risk and trust in young peoples’ online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 299-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09. 012
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences statistics, research design SPSS applications and interpretation] (21st ed.). Pegem Akademi
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik [Statistics for social sciences] (7th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
• Çam, M. O., Engin, E., & Uğuryol, M. (2017). Ego development and sense of trust in university students. Journal of International Social Research, 10(51). http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1784
• Cobern, W. W., Adams, B. A., Pleasants, B. A., Bentley, A., & Kagumba, R. (2022). Do we have a trust problem? Exploring undergraduate student views on the tentativeness and trustworthiness of science. Science & Education, 31(pp. 1209–1238). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1
• Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6 th ed.). Routledge.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Veri analizi ve raporlama [Data analysis and reporting]. In E. Dinç & K. Kıroğlu (Eds.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in education] (pp. 8-735). Pegem Akademi.
• Covitt, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (2022). Untangling trustworthiness and uncertainty in Science. Science & Education, 31(5):1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00322-6
• Dunlap, RE, & McCright, AM. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144-160). Oxford University Press.
• Dunn, J, & Schweitzer, M. (2005). Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 736-748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736
• Ertürk, D. (2018). Risk society: the subject within uncertainty, fear and the search for trust. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(10), 275-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.13105
• Esen, S., & Alkış Küçükaydın M. (2022). Turkish adaptation study of the trust in science and scientists scale: Validity and reliability study. Research on Education and Psychology (REP), 6(Special Issue), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1089295
• European Federation of Academies (2019). Trust in science and changing landscapes of Communication. ALLEA Discussion Paper 3. ALLEA_Trust_in_Science_and_Changing_Landscapes_of_Communication-1.pdf
• Fensham, P. J. (2014). Skepticism and trust: Two counterpoint essentials in science education for complex socioscientific issues. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 649-661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9560-1
• Gölbaşı, S. D., & Metintas, S. (2020). COVİD-19 pandemic and infodemia. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi, 5, 126-137. https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.797508
• Güngör, D. (2016). Summary a guide to scale development and adaptation in psychology. Turkish Psychological Articles, 19(38), 104-112. https://www.tpd.com.tr/tr/yayinlar/dergiler/1031828/tpy1301996120160000m000041.pdf
• Gürbüz, S. (2021). Amos ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Structural equation modeling using Amos]. Seçkin.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kaya, M. F. (2013). A scale development study on the attitudes of sustainable development. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 28, 175-193. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3351
• Keelan, J., Pavri, V., Balakrishnan, R., & Wilson, K. (2010). An analysis of the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine debate on MySpace blogs. Vaccine, 28(6), 1535-1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.060
• Kingsley, O., & Van Kranendonk, S. (2017). Space science outreach-are we decreasing public understanding. In International Astronautical Congress paper for IAC2017, IAC-17 E (Vol. 1). Published by the IAF.
• Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. The Guilford Press.
• Kreimer, A. R., González, P., Katki, H. A., Porras, C., Schiffman, M., Rodriguez, A. C., …, CVT Vaccine Group. (2011). Efficacy of a bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine against anal HPV 16/18 infection among young women: A nested analysis within the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 12(9), 862-870. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70213-3
• Krüger, J. T., Höffler, T. N., & Parchmann, I. (2022). Trust in science and scientists among secondary school students in two out-of-school learning activities. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 12(2), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2022.2045380
• Kurt, A., & Kürüm, D. (2010). Relationship between media literacy and critical thinking: A conceptual view. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 2(2), 20-34. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/181706
• MacDonald, E. A., Balanovic, J., Edwards, E. D., Abrahamse, W., Frame, B., Greenaway, A., Kannemeyer, R., Kirk, N., Medvecky, F., Milfont, T. L., Russell, J. C., & Tompkins, D. M. (2020). Public opinion towards gene drive as a pest control approach for biodiversity conservation and the association of underlying worldviews. Environmental Communication, 14(7), 904-918. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1702568
• Nakip, M. (2006). Pazarlama araştırmaları, teknikler ve (SPSS destekli) uygulamalar [Marketing research, techniques and applications (SPSS supported)]. Seçkin.
• Nadelson, L. S., & Hardy, K. K. (2015). Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0037-4
• Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Jarratt Smith, M., Matson, S., Cornell, K., & Husting, V. (2014). I just do not trust them: the development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12051
• Romano, DM. (2003). The nature of trust: conceptual and operational clarification [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Louisiana State University. http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/ available/etd-0130103-070613/unrestricted/Romano_dis.pdf. Accessed 2 Jun 2015.
• Rowland, J., Estevens, J., Krzewińska, A., Warwas, I., & Delicado, A. (2022). Trust and mistrust in sources of scientific information on climate change and vaccines: Insights from Portugal and Poland. Science & education, 31(5), 1399-1424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00304-0
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci [Psychological test development and adaptation]. Anı Publisher.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E.S., & Çinko, M.(2006). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi [Data analysis in social sciences with SPSS]. Beta Publisher.
• Smith, MU, Siegel, H, & McInerney, JD. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science & Education, 4(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486589
• Soslu, Ö. (2021). An investigation of primary school students' opinions about the nature of science in terms of some variables. International Journal of Active Learning, 6(2), 141-153. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1837069
• Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (pp. 1-17). SAS Institute.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation modelling: Basic concepts and applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazilari [Turkish Psychology Articles]. 3(6), 49–74. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-04302-005
• Tan, Ş. (2015). Öğretimde ölçme ve değerlendirme KPSS el kitabı [Measurement and evaluation in teaching KPSS handbook]. Pegem Akademi.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
• Weeks, W. B., Wallace, A. E., & Kimberly, B. C. (2004). Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Social Science & Medicine, 59(9), 1949-1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.029
• Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science. EMBO reports, 3(8), 703-706.
• Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46, 74-85. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/369427
• Yıldırım, C. (1999). Bilimin öncüleri [The pioneers of science] (14th ed.). Tübitak.