Cross-cultural adaptation of the digital literacy scale among Arab immigrants in Türkiye

Öz

This study aims to culturally adapt the Digital Literacy Scale (Bayrakçı & Narmanlıoğlu, 2021) into Arabic and evaluate its measurement properties among the Arab immigrant community in Türkiye. The adaptation process followed standard forward and backward translation procedures, followed by a review from an expert committee. A preliminary test involving 30 individuals was conducted to identify potential semantic issues, leading to the finalized Arabic version of the scale. The revised scale was then tested on a sample of 302 Arab volunteers. The adaptation process included exploratory factor analysis, reliability and descriptive analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and item discrimination analysis. Results from the exploratory factor analysis revealed four factors instead of the six found in the original scale. Cultural and educational differences within the studied community may account for the variation in factors as seen in many adaptation studies. The component correlation matrix indicated significant inter-factor correlations. The Arabic adaptation demonstrated a high internal consistency value of 0.919, reflecting excellent statistical reliability. The item-total correlation for all 23 items exceeded 0.4, ranging from 0.405 to 0.692. Arabic version exhibits strong internal consistency and construct validity, offering a reliable and modern tool for measuring digital literacy levels across Arab communities in various countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arab immigrants
• digital literacy
• digital literacy scale
• scale adoption
• Arabic

Dijital okuryazarlık ölçeğinin Türkiye’deki Arap göçmenler üzerinde kültürlerarası adaptasyonu

Öz

Bu çalışma, Dijital Okuryazarlık Ölçeğini (Bayrakçı & Narmanlıoğlu, 2021) Arapçaya kültürel olarak uyarlamayı ve Türkiye'deki Arap göçmen topluluğu arasındaki ölçüm özelliklerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Uyarlama süreci, standart ileri ve geri çeviri prosedürlerini takip etmiş ve ardından bir uzman komitesi tarafından gözden geçirilmiştir. Potansiyel anlamsal sorunları belirlemek için 30 kişinin katıldığı bir ön test yapılmış ve bu test sonucunda ölçeğin Arapça versiyonu nihai hale getirilmiştir. Revize edilen ölçek, 302 Arap gönüllüden oluşan bir örneklem üzerinde test edilmiştir. Uyarlama süreci, keşfedici faktör analizi, güvenilirlik ve betimsel analiz, madde ayırt edicilik analizi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizini içermiştir. Keşfedici faktör analizi sonuçları, orijinal ölçekte bulunan altı faktör yerine dört faktör ortaya çıkarmıştır. İncelenen topluluk içindeki kültürel ve eğitimsel farklılıklar, birçok uyarlama çalışmasında görüldüğü gibi faktörlerdeki bu varyasyonu açıklaya bilir. Bileşen korelasyon matrisi, faktörler arasında önemli korelasyonlar olduğunu göstermiştir. Arapça uyarlama, 0.919 gibi yüksek bir iç tutarlılık değeri sergilemiş ve bu da yüksek seviyede istatistiksel güvenilirliği yansıtmıştır. 23 maddenin tamamı için madde-toplam korelasyonu 0.4'ü aşmış ve 0.405 ile 0.692 arasında değişmiştir. Arapça versiyon, güçlü bir iç tutarlılık ve yapı geçerliliği sergilemekte olup, çeşitli ülkelerdeki Arap topluluklarında dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerini ölçmek için güvenilir ve güncel bir araç sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arap göçmenler
• dijital okuryazarlık
• dijital okuryazarlık ölçeği
• ölçek adaptasyonu
• Arapça

Kaynakça

1. Aidini, E. (2023). Digital divide: How to connect those who are not connected? The case of the Arab region [Master’s thesis, Université de Genève]. google scholar
2. Akalın, A. T. (2016). The educational problems of the Syrian refugee children in Turkey [Master’s thesis, Istanbul Aydın University]. google scholar
3. Alencar, A., & Tsagkroni, V. (2019). Prospects of refugee integration in the Netherlands: Social capital, information practices and digital media. Media and Communication, 2, 184–194. google scholar
4. Al-Khanbashi, M. (2022). An empirical case study addressing an appropriation of space for football by Arab immigrants in different German cities. In D. Edler, O. Kühne, & C. Jenal (Eds.), The social construction of landscapes in games (pp. 209–228). Springer. google scholar
5. Almazan, A. (2022). Exploring the role of Saudi Universities websites in supporting and evaluating digital literacy skills of their attendees association of Arab universities. Journal for Education and Psychology, 3(2), 4-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid2.14 google scholar
6. Andrade, A. D., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees, Mis Quarterly, 40(2), 405–416. google scholar
7. Asasi, A., & Asasi, K. (2021). Use of the internet for scientific research and its role in information literacy from the perspective of university students in Algeria, Al Magallah Al İlmiyyat Lil Tiknulugya wa Ulum Al Iagat, 3(2), 71-89. google scholar
8. Ayón, C., Ojeda, I., & Ruano, E. (2018). Cultural socialization practices among Latino immigrant families within a restrictive immigration socio-political context. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.042 google scholar

9. Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2016). Lifelong digital skills development, current picture and future challenges. Greenwich. google scholar
10. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77-85. google scholar
11. Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Documentation, 57, 218-259. google scholar
12. Bayrakcı, S., & Narmanlıoğlu, H. (2021). Investigation of digital literacy levels of undergraduate students and graduates in Turkey. AJIT-E: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 12(46), 46-67. https://doi.org/10.5824/ajite.2021.03.003.x google scholar
13. BBC. (2024, March 5). İçişleri Bakanı Yerlikaya, Türk vatandaşı olan Suriyelilerin sayısının 238 bine yaklaştığını açıkladı. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/c1e29v09d3eo google scholar
14. Bekiroğlu, O., & Balcı, Ş. (2016). Looking for the clues of sensitivity of intercultural communication: A survey on the sample of communication faculty students. Selçuk University Journal of Studies in Turcology, 35, 429–459. https://doi.org/10.21563/sutad.187110 google scholar
15. Borselli, M., & van Meijl, T. (2021). Linking migration aspirations to integration prospects: The experience of Syrian refugees in Sweden. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa043 google scholar
16. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. T. A. Brown (Ed.), Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, (pp.79-94), Guilford publications. google scholar
17. Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Auslib Press. google scholar
18. Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. Falmer. google scholar
19. Burns, N. & Susan, K. G. (2005). The practice of nursing research conduct. Saunders. google scholar
20. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Factor analysis: Basic concepts and using to development scale. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483. google scholar
21. Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, New Jersey: Mahwah. google scholar
22. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15. google scholar
23. Collyer, M. (2013). Migrants, migration and the security paradigm: Constraints and opportunities. F. Volpi (Ed.) Transnational Islam and Regional Security (pp. 119-134). Routledge. google scholar
24. Comray, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum google scholar
25. Creswell, J. W. (2019). Karma yöntem araştırmalarına giriş. Pegem. google scholar
26. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge. google scholar
27. Cureton, E. E. (1957). The upper and lower twenty-seven per cent rule. Psychometrika, 22(3), 293-296. google scholar
28. Debes, J. L. (1968). Some foundations for visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction, 13, 961-964. google scholar
29. Drolet, J., & Moorthi, G. (2018). The settlement experiences of Syrian newcomers in Alberta: Social connections and interactions. google scholar
30. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 50 (2), 101-120. http://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2018.0017 google scholar
31. Eşsiz, S. (2017). Refugee law and the situation of the Syrians in Turkey [Master’s thesis, Karabük University]. google scholar
32. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. google scholar
33. Fisher, K. (2018). Information worlds of refugees. In C. F. Maitland (Ed.), Digital lifeline? ICTs for refugees and displaced persons (pp. 79– 112). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
34. Fritz, W., Mollenberg, A., & Chen, G.-M. (2002). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different cultural contexts. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11, 165–176. google scholar
35. Gençer, R. M. (2016). European Union policies towards the refugees and the conditions of the Syrian refugees after the Arab Spring: The case of UK, Germany and Italy [Master’s thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University]. google scholar
36. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub. google scholar
37. Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies, and the digital in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 131-144. google scholar
38. Goodson, I., & Mangan, J.M. (1996). Computer literacy as ideology, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(1): 65–79. google scholar
39. Gourlay, L., Hamilton, M., & Lea, R. (2013). Textual practices in the new media digital landscape: messing with digital literacies. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21438 google scholar
40. Greenfield, P. (1984). Mind and media. Cambridge google scholar
41. Greve, B. (2016). Migrants and health in the Nordic welfare states. Public Health Reviews, 37, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-016-0023-6 google scholar
42. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson google scholar
43. Hall, M., Nix, I., & Baker, K. (2013). Student experiences and perceptions of digital literacy skills development: Engaging learners by design? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(3), 207-223. google scholar
44. Hambleton, R. K. & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. 1(1), 1-30. google scholar
45. Hansen, P. (2010). More barbwire or more immigration, or Both-EU migration policy in the nexus of border security management and neoliberal economic growth. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 11(1), 89-101. google scholar
46. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485 google scholar
47. Hilal, M.A.H. (2019). A proposed plan for digital literacy among adults in Egypt in the light of digital culture, JEHS, 11(3), 155-218. google scholar
48. Hockly, N. (2012). Technology for the language teacher: Digital literacies. ELT Journal, 66(1), 106-112. google scholar
49. Hudson, T. (1990). IRT Discrimination interpretation in criterion-referenced language testing. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 9(2), 99-128 google scholar
50. Inoue, H., Naito, E., & Koshizuka, M. (1997). Mediacy: What it is? Where to go? The International Information & Library Review, 29(3-4), 403-413. google scholar
51. İnan Karagul, B., Seker, M., & Aykut, C. (2021). Investigating students’ digital literacy levels during online education due to COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(21), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111878 google scholar
52. JISC. (2011). Developing digital literacies: Briefing paper in support of JISC grant funding 4/11. http://digitalfuturesoer3.pbworks.com/ w/file/fetch/51851938/Briefingpaper.pdf google scholar
53. Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. google scholar
54. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. google scholar
55. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. google scholar
56. Kaufmann, K. (2018). Navigating a new life: Syrian refugees and their smartphones in Vienna. Information, Communication & Society, google scholar
57. 21(6), 882–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1437205 google scholar
58. Kaya, H., & Korucuk, M. (2022). Examination of digital literacy levels of university students, Dinamika Ilmu, 22(1), 167-186. https://doi. org/10.21093/di.v22i1.4523. google scholar
59. Kellner, D., (2002). Critical perspectives on visual imagery in media and cyberculture. Journal of Visual Literacy, 22(1), 81-90. google scholar
60. Ketanci, P. (2023). Investigating students’ perceived digital literacy skills and attitudes towards ICT use in a blended learning environment. Language Education and Technology, 3(1), 30-44. google scholar
61. Khoja, J. (2020). Digital media in refugees’ everyday life and integration [Master’s thesis, Lund University]. google scholar
62. Kinzer, C. K. (2010). Considering literacy and policy in the context of digital environments. Language Arts, 88(1), 51–61. google scholar
63. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge. google scholar
64. Kuz, R. (2015). The matter of refugees and asylum seekers between Turkey and European Union relations and its effects [Master’s thesis, Süleyman Demirel University]. google scholar
65. Lahav, G. (2010). Immigration policy as counterterrorism: The effects of security on migration and border control in the European Union. M. Crenshaw (Ed.) The Consequences of Counterterrorism, (pp.130-176), Sage. google scholar
66. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. google scholar
67. Leurs, K. (2017). Communication rights from the margins: Politicising young refugees’ smartphone pocket archives. International Communication Gazette, 79(6/7), 674–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048517727182 google scholar
68. Liang, C.S. (2016). Europe for the Europeans: The foreign and security policy of the populist radical right. C.S. Liang (Ed.), Europe for the Europeans (pp.1-32), Routledge. google scholar
69. Maitland, C. F. (2018). Information sharing and multilevel covernance in refugee services, C. F. Maitland (Ed.) Digital lifeline? ICTs for refugees and displaced persons, (pp. 55–78), Cambridge. google scholar
70. Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05040249 google scholar
71. OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide (OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 49). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 236405667766 google scholar
72. Pegrum, M. (2011). Modified, multiplied, and (re-) mixed: Social media and digital literacies. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Digital education (pp. 9–36). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
73. Reichel, D., Siegel, M., & Tudela, J. C. A. (2015). ICT for the employability and integration of immigrants in the European Union: A qualitative analysis of a survey in Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Spain. Publications Office of the European Union. google scholar
74. Sağnıç, Ş. G. (2017). Guests who drowned: Legal ambiguities behind refugee vulnerability [Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University]. google scholar
75. Sarsour, O. (2022). The role of language in the social integration of Arab immigrants and refugees in the EU. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(7), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.107008 google scholar
76. 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 Online, 8(2), 23–74. google scholar
77. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–770. google scholar
78. Stordy, P. (2015). Taxonomy of literacies. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 456–476. google scholar
79. Swisher, L. L., Beckstead, J. W., & Bebeau, M. J. (2004). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis using a professional role orientation inventory as an example. Physical Therapy, 84(9), 784–799. google scholar
80. Şimşek, D. (2020). Integration processes of Syrian refugees in Turkey: ‘Class-based integration’. Journal of Refugee Studies, 33(3), 537– 554. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fey057 google scholar
81. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. google scholar
82. Tamam, E. (2010). Examining Chen and Starosta’s model of intercultural sensitivity in a multiracial collectivistic country. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39(3), 173–183. google scholar
83. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
84. Teniou, K., & Dehane, M. (2019). Digital competence and digital gap in Arab world. Al Bashaer Economic Journal, 5(1), 1078–1093. google scholar
85. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606290168 google scholar
86. Williams, J., Clemens, S., Oleinikova, K., & Tarvin, K. (2003). The skills for life survey: A national needs and impact survey of literacy. Department for Education and Skills. https://doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/7239/mrdoc/pdf/7239_2003_skills_for_life_survey_ research_brief.pdf google scholar
87. Yeşilyurt, S., & Çapraz, C. (2018). A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(1), 251–264. google scholar
88. Yeşilyurt, E., & Vezne, R. (2023). Digital literacy, technological literacy, and internet literacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-supported education. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 9885–9911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11311-1 google scholar
89. Yusuf, S. (2021). Digital technology and inequality: The impact on Arab countries (Working Paper No. 1486). Economic Research Forum. https://erf.org.eg/app/uploads/2021/09/1632920263_470_2894109_1486.pdf google scholar