The Academic Use Disposition Scale of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools for Undergraduate Students: A Validity and Reliability Study

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1 , 120 - 151 , 30.03.2026

Süleyman Yaman , Özgen Korkmaz , Soner Mehmet Özdemir , Oktay Akbaş , Recep Çakır , Ertuğrul Usta , Halil Tokcan

https://izlik.org/JA52CW88ZP

Öz

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement instrument to assess university students' tendencies to use generative artificial intelligence tools for academic purposes. Within this framework, the "Scale of Undergraduate Students' Disposition to Use Generative AI tools for Academic Purposes" was developed. A five-point Likert-type scale was employed as the data collection instrument during the scale development process. The study sample comprised 863 undergraduate students enrolled at various universities in Türkiye. To establish the scale's construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted using data from 416 students. Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed using data from a separate sample of 447 students to verify the factor structure identified in the first phase. The EFA results indicated that the scale comprises 20 items grouped under four factors: perceived usefulness, ease of use, ethical use, and social norms and environmental influence. The explained variance ratios and item factor loadings demonstrated high construct validity. The CFA results further confirmed the four-factor structure, yielding acceptable model fit indices. The scale's discriminative power was examined by comparing the upper and lower 27% groups, and all items showed statistically significant discriminative properties. In the internal consistency procedures conducted for the scale's reliability analyses, it was determined that while the Cronbach's Alpha and Omega coefficients were very high, the stability coefficient was moderate. Overall, the findings indicate that the developed scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring undergraduate students' tendencies to use generative artificial intelligence tools for academic purposes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Generative artificial intelligence , Undergraduate students , Academic use , Disposition , Factor analysis

Lisans Öğrencileri İçin Üretken Yapay Zekâ Araçlarının Akademik Amaçlı Kullanım Eğilimi Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

https://izlik.org/JA52CW88ZP

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversite öğrencilerinin üretken yapay zekâ araçlarını akademik amaçlarla kullanma eğilimlerini belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Bu kapsamda “Lisans Öğrencileri İçin Üretken Yapay Zekâ Araçlarının Akademik Amaçlı Kullanım Eğilimi Ölçeği” geliştirilmiştir. Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde veri toplama aracı olarak beşli Likert tipi bir ölçek kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Türkiye’de farklı üniversitelerde öğrenim gören toplam 863 lisans öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini belirlemek amacıyla ilk aşamada 416 öğrenciden elde edilen veriler üzerinde açımlayıcı faktör analizi gerçekleştirilmiş, ardından ortaya çıkan faktör yapısını doğrulamak amacıyla ilk uygulamadan farklı 447 öğrenciden toplanan verilerle doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. AFA sonuçları, ölçeğin 20 maddeden ve dört faktörden oluşan bir yapıya sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Faktörlerin açıklanan varyans oranları ve madde faktör yükleri ölçeğin yapı geçerliğinin yüksek olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. DFA sonuçları ise dört faktörlü yapının kabul edilebilir uyum indeksleriyle doğrulandığını göstermiştir. Ölçeğin ayırt edicilik düzeyi %27’lik alt ve %27’lik üst grup karşılaştırmalarıyla test edilmiş ve tüm maddelerin anlamlı düzeyde ayırt edici olduğu saptanmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirlik analizleri için yapılan iç tutarlılık işlemlerinde, Cronbach Alfa ve Omega katsayılarının çok yüksek iken kararlılık katsayısının ise orta düzeyde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, geliştirilen ölçeğin lisans öğrencilerinin ÜYZ araçlarını akademik amaçlı kullanma eğilimlerini ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üretken yapay zekâ , Lisans öğrencileri , Akademik kullanım , Eğilim , Faktör analizi

Kaynakça

• Adamakis, M., & Rachiotis, T. (2025). Artificial intelligence in higher education: a state-of-the-art overview of pedagogical integrity, artificial intelligence literacy, and policy integration. Encyclopedia, 5, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5040180
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology acceptance model in m-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 125, 389-412.
• Anders, B. A. (2023). Is using ChatGPT cheating, plagiarism, both, neither, or forward thinking? Patterns, 4(3), 100694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100694
• Anierobi EI, Amjad AI., Agogbua VU., Aslam, S., Fakhrou, A., Alanazi, A.A., … & Javaid, S.(2025). Artificial intelligence utilization: a determinant of academic self-efficacy, engagement, and satisfaction of undergraduates. Environment and Social Psychology, 10 (3): 3504. http://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i3.3504
• Ballesteros, M. A., Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Valle, M. D. L. Á. G., Morales-Angaspilco, J. E., Torres, J. C. C., López, J. E. L., ... & Jordan, O. H. (2025). The influence of social norms and word-of-mouth marketing on behavioral intention and behavioral use of generative AI chatbots among university students. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19, 100760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100760
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
• Banh, L., & Strobel, G. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence. Electron Markets 33, 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00680-1
• Bebeau, M. J., Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1999). Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028004018
• Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.
• Büyükada, S. (2024). Akademik yazımda yapay zekâ kullanımının etik açıdan incelenmesi: ChatGPT örneği. Rize İlahiyat Dergisi, (26), 1–12.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
• Chan, C.K.Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(43), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
• Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
• Costa, A. & Kallick. B. (2014). Dispositions: Reframing teaching and learning. Corwin Press.
• Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Explorations in Teacher Education, 36, 36-38.
• Çatman, F.N., Topsakal, E., & Saatçioğlu, Ö. (2025). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yapay zekâ kullanım düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(Özel Sayı), 317-347. https://izlik.org/JA24DW27J
• Çolakoğlu, Ö. M., & Büyükekşi, C. (2014). Açımlayıcı faktör analiz sürecini etkileyen unsurların değerlendirilmesi. Karaelmas Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 56-64.
• 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
• Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19-45.
• De Silva, D., Kaynak, O., El-Ayoubi, M., Mills, N., Alahakoon, D., & Manic, M. (2024). Opportunities and challenges of generative artificial intelligence: Research, education, industry engagement, and social impact. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, 19(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2024.3382962
• Dede, C., & Etemadi, A. (2021). Why dispositions matter for the workforce in turbulent, uncertain times. The Next Level Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. President and Fellows of Harvard College: Cambridge, MA.
• Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Orlando, B., & Mustilli, M. (2023). Toward the human–centered approach. A revised model of individual acceptance of AI. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100856
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
• Dewey, J. (2002). Human nature and conduct. Courier Corporation. (Orijinal çalışma 1922’de yayımlanmıştır)
• Duong, C. D., Bui, D. T., Pham, H. T., Vu, A. T., & Nguyen, V. H. (2024). How effort expectancy and performance expectancy interact to trigger higher education students’ uses of ChatGPT for learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 356-380.
• Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., ... & Wright, R. (2023). Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory for psychologists. Psychology Press.
• Eroğlu, A. (2008). Faktör analizi. Kalaycı, Ş. (Ed), SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (s. 321-331) içinde, Asil.
• Evering, L. C., & Moorman, G. (2012). Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(1), 35-44.
• Ezeoguine, E.P., & Eteng-Uket, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence tools and higher education student’s engagement. Edukasiana: Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan, 3(3), 300-312. https://doi.org/10.56916/ejip.v3i3.733
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
• Freeman, J. (2025). Student generative AI survey 2025. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/student-generative-ai-survey-2025/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
• Hovardaoğlu, S. (2000). Davranış bilimleri için araştırma teknikleri. Ve-Ga.
• Johnston, H., Wells, R.F., Shanks, E.M., Boey, T., & Parsons, B.N. (2024). Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20 (2),1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4
• Jovanovic, M., & Campbell, M. (2022). Generative artificial intelligence: Trends and prospects. Computer, 55(10), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2022.3192720
• Kanbach, D. K., Heiduk, L., Blueher, G., Schreiter, M., & Lahmann, A. (2024). The GenAI is out of the bottle: generative artificial intelligence from a business model innovation perspective. Review of Managerial Science, 18(4), 1189-1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00696-z
• Karahan Adalı, G., & Bilgili, A. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Students’ perspectives on adoption, ethical concerns, and academic impact. Acta Infologica, 9(1), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.26650/acin.1670197
• Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
• Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
• Kurtoğlu, M. (2025). Yapay zekânın lisans eğitiminde kullanımı: Öğrenci bakış açısıyla bir değerlendirme (Tez No: 964456) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Kyriazos, T. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 09, 2207-2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
• Mahmood, A., Imran, M., & Adil, K. (2023). Modeling individual beliefs to transfigure technology readiness into technology acceptance in financial institutions. SAGE Open, 13(1), 21582440221149718. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221149718
• Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological review, 102(2), 246-268.
• Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1998). Psychological testing (4th ed). Prentice Hall.
• Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985772
• Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). MacGraw-Hill.
• Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1–13). Pergamon Press.
• Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
• Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence (ChatGPT): Implications for management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), Article no. 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100857
• Reio, T. G., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314559804
• Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 342-363.
• Sabah, N. M. (2016). Exploring students' awareness and perceptions: Influencing factors and individual differences driving m-learning adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 522-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.009
• Sengar, S. S., Hasan, A. B., Kumar, S., & Carroll, F. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 84, 23661–23700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20016-1
• Sousa, A. E., & Cardoso, P. (2025). Use of generative AI by higher education students. Electronics, 14(7), 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14071258
• Sustaningrum, R., & Haldaka, M. (2025). Student utilization and perceptions of AI technology for academic purposes: a mixed-method analysis, Cogent Education, 12(1), 2553835. http://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2553835
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Terwee, C.B., Bot, S.D., de Boer, M.R., van der Windt DA., Knol DL., Dekker J., … & De vet, H.C.W. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34-42.
• Ursavaş, Ö. F., Yalçın, Y., İslamoğlu, H., Bakır-Yalçın, E., & Cukurova, M. (2025). Rethinking the importance of social norms in generative AI adoption: investigating the acceptance and use of generative AI among higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00535-z
• Valova, I., Mladenova, T., & Kanev, G., (2024). Students’ perception of ChatGPT usage in education. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 15(1), 466-473.
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
• 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
• Von Garrel, J., & Mayer, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence in studies-use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany. Humanities and Social Sciences Mommunications, 10(1), 799. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02304-7
• Weale, S. (2025, February 26). UK universities warned to ‘stress-test’ assessments as 92% of students use AI. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/feb/26/uk-universities-warned-to-stress- test-assessments-as-92-of-students-use-ai?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
• YÖK. (2026, 21 Ocak). Yükseköğretim bilgi yönetim sistemi. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
• Zhang, R., & Wang, J. (2025). Perceptions, adoption intentions, and impacts of generative AI among Chinese university students. Current Psychology, 44(11), 11276-11295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07928-3