STEM Kariyer İlgileri Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Bazı Sosyo-Demografik Değişkenlere Göre İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı STEM Kariyer İlgileri Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve STEM kariyer ilgilerinin cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyine göre fark gösterip göstermediğinin incelenmesidir. Araştırmada ilk aşamada 302 ortaokul öğrencisinden (154 kız, 148 erkek) elde edilen veriler ile Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi; ikinci aşamada ise 300 ortaokul öğrencisinden (156 kız, 144 erkek) elde edilen veriler ile Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi, ölçüt geçerliliği ve iç tutarlılık analizleri yapılmıştır. Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi sonuçlarına göre ölçeğin beş maddeden oluşan tek faktörlü yapısı doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin Cronbach alfa ve McDonald’s omega değeri .93 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçüt geçerliliği kapsamında yapılan analizler sonucunda STEM kariyer ilgi puanları ile bilime, mühendisliğe ve matematiğe yönelik tutum alt boyut puanları arasında pozitif yönde ve anlamlı ilişkiler olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca STEM kariyer ilgileri yüksek olan öğrencilerin, STEM’e yönelik bir kariyer umusuna sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Bulgular, Türkçe STEM Kariyer İlgileri Ölçeği’nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermiştir. Analizlere göre kız ve erkek öğrencilerin STEM kariyer ilgi düzeylerinde anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmazken 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin STEM kariyer ilgileri 8. sınıf öğrencilerinden anlamlı düzeyde yüksek bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEM kariyer ilgileri
• STEM kariyer umuları
• Ortaokul
• Ölçek uyarlama

The Adaptation of the STEM Career Interest Scale into Turkish and Examination According to Some Socio-Demographic Variables

Öz

The aim of this study was to adapt the STEM Career Interests Scale to Turkish and to examine whether STEM career interests differ according to gender and grade level. In the first stage of the study, Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted with data obtained from 302 middle school students (154 females, 148 males). In the second stage, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, criterion validity, and internal consistency analyses were conducted with data obtained from 300 middle school students (156 females, 144 males). According to the results of the Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses, the scale's single-factor structure consisting of five items was confirmed. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega values were calculated as .93. As a result of the analyses conducted within the scope of criterion validity, positive and significant relationships were found between STEM career interest scores and attitudes towards science, engineering, and mathematics sub-dimension scores. In addition, students with high STEM career interest were found to have STEM career aspirations. The findings demonstrated that the Turkish STEM Career Interests Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool. Analysis revealed no significant difference in STEM career interest levels between male and female students, while 6th grade students had significantly higher STEM career interests than 8th grade students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEM career interests
• STEM career aspirations
• Middle school
• Scale adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Ægisdóttir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Çinarbaş, D. C. (2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Equivalence, bias, and translations. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(2), 188-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000007305384
2. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM Eğitimi Türkiye Raporu. Scala. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1980.0801
3. Amalina, I. K., Vidákovich, T., & Karimova, K. (2025). Factors influencing student interest in STEM careers: Motivational, cognitive, and socioeconomic status. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04446-2
4. Babarović, T. (2022). Development of STEM vocational interests during elementary and middle school: A cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 49(6), 1230–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211036986
5. Bahr, T. & Zinn, B. (2023). Gender differences in the new interdisciplinary subject informatik, mathematik, physik (IMP)—Sticking with STEM? Education Sciences, 13(5), 478. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050478
6. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3, 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x
7. Bircan, M. A. & Çalışıcı, H. (2022). The effects of STEM education activities on fourth grade students' attitudes to STEM, 21st-century skills and mathematics success. Education and Science, 47(211), 87-119. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10710
8. Burwell-Woo, C., Lapuz, R., Huang, T., & Langhoff, N. (2015). Enhancing knowledge, interest, and self-efficacy in STEM through a summer STEM exploration program. Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition içinde (s. 1-15). American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23998

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (18. b.). Pegem.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2019). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (27. b.). Pegem.
11. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA.
12. Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.010
13. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
14. Christensen, R. & Knezek, G. (2017). Relationship of middle school student STEM interest to career intent. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.275649
15. Clark-Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072
16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. b.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis (2. b.). Psychology.
18. Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7). 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
19. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5. b.). Sage.
20. Çavaş, P., Ayar, A., & Gürcan, G. (2020). Türkiye’de STEM eğitimi üzerine yapılan araştırmaların durumu üzerine bir çalışma. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 823-854. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.751853
21. Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2014.1219
22. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455
23. DeVellis, R. F. & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5.b.). Sage.
24. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
25. DOL. (2023). ONET OnLine. https://www.onetonline.org/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
26. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
27. Douglas, K. A. & Strobel, J. (2015). Hopes and goals survey for use in STEM elementary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9277-9
28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
29. Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
30. Eccles, J. S. (2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411398185
31. Elias, H., Pedrosa, I., & Holanda, M. (2024). Gender bias in tech – Young people’s perception of STEM in Portugal. Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, G. Dzemyda, F. Moreira, & A. Poniszewska-Marańda (Ed.), Good practices and new perspectives in information systems and technologies: WorldCIST 2024 (Lecture notes in networks and systems) (c. 988) içinde (s. 120-130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60224-5_13
32. Ergün, A. (2019). Identification of the interest of Turkish middle-school students in STEM careers: Gender and grade level differences. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.90
33. Falco, L. D. & Summers, J. J. (2019). Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: Evaluation of an intervention. Journal of Career Development, 46(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317721651
34. Falco, L. D., Summers, J. J., & Bauman, S. (2010). Encouraging mathematics participation through improved self-efficacy: A school counseling outcomes study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(6), 529-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2011.555101
35. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4. b.). Sage.
36. Gray, M. P. & O'Brien, K. M. (2007). Advancing the assessment of women's career choices: The Career Aspiration Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(3), 317-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707301211
37. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Harwell, M. (2016). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher-developed engineering design-based STEM integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1129
38. Hartung, P. J., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2005). Child vocational development: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 385-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.006
39. Hatisaru, V. (2021). Theory-driven determinants of school students’ STEM career goals: A preliminary investigation. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9558
40. Heilbronner, N. N. (2013). The STEM pathway for women: What has changed? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460085
41. 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
42. Hosmer, D. W., Jr., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3.b.). Wiley.
43. Hu, L. & 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
44. Huck, S. W. (2008). Reading statistics and research (5. b.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
45. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
46. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
47. Kanematsu, H. & Barry, D. M. (2016). The importance of stem for modern education. H. Kanematsu & D. M. Barry (Ed.), STEM and ICT education in intelligent environments (c. 91) içinde (s. 25–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19234-5_4
48. Kass, R. A. & Tinsley, H. E. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(2), 120-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1979.11969385
49. Kırılmazkaya, G. (2019). Investigation of middle school students’ attitudes to STEM in terms of different variables. Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019) içinde (s. 30–33). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3337682.3338836
50. Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2014). The development of the STEM career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9389-3
51. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4. b.). The Guilford.
52. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future (ESA Issue Brief No. 03-11). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Office of the Chief Economist. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522129.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
53. Larson, L. C. & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
54. Leaper, C. & Brown, C. S. (2014). Sexism in schools. J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (c. 47) içinde (s. 189–223). Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2014.04.001
55. Lent, R. W. (1996). Career development from a social cognitive perspective. D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Ed.), Career choice and development (3. b.) içinde (s. 373–421). Jossey-Bass.
56. Lent, R. W. & Brown, S. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overview. The Career Development Quarterly, 44(4), 310-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00448.x
57. Lent, R. W. & Brown, S. D. (2002). Social cognitive career theory and adult career development. S. G. Niles (Ed.), Adult career development: Concepts, issues, and practices (3. b.) içinde (s. 76–97). National Career Development Association.
58. Lent, R. W. & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 12-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072705281364
59. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
60. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. D. Brown et al. (Ed.), Career choice and development (4. b.) içinde (s. 255–311). John Wiley & Sons.
61. Li, M., Liu, J., & Li, Y. (2020). A comparative analysis of STEM education research (2016–2020) based on CiteSpace. Proceedings of the 2020 Ninth International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) içinde (s. 140–145). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT50754.2020.00029
62. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002
63. Loku, A. & Loku, N. (2025). Globalization, automation, and the future of work: Examining the impact of technological advancements on the workforce. Quality-Access to Success, 26(204), 88-96. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/26.204.10
64. Luo, T., So, W. W. M., & Wan, Z. H. (2021). STEM stereotypes predict students’ STEM career interest via self-efficacy and outcome expectations. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(36), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00295-y
65. Maciejewski, D., Lauharatanahirun, N., Herd, T., Lee, J., Deater-Deckard, K., King-Casas, B., & Kim-Spoon, J. (2018). Neural cognitive control moderates the association between insular risk processing and risk-taking behaviors via perceived stress in adolescents. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.005
66. Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2019). The gender gap in STEM fields: The impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students’ career aspirations. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00060
67. Mark, S. L. (2016). Psychology of working narratives of STEM career exploration for non-dominant youth. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 976–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9646-0
68. Mau, W.-C. J. & Li, J. (2018). Factors influencing STEM career aspirations of underrepresented high school students. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12146
69. May, B. K., Wendt, J. L., & Barthlow, M. J. (2022). A comparison of students’ interest in STEM across science standard types. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 6(1), 100287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100287
70. McDonald, R. P. (2013). Test theory: A unified treatment. Psychology.
71. McGuire, L., Mulvey, K. L., Goff, E., Irvin, M. J., Winterbottom, M., Fields, G. E., & Rutland, A. (2020). STEM gender stereotypes from early childhood through adolescence at informal science centers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 67, 101109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101109
72. MEB. (2016). STEM Eğitimi Raporu. Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü: http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/STEM_Egitimi_Raporu.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
73. MEB. (2018). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı (Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201813017165445-MATEMAT%C4%B0K%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI%202018v.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
74. Metpattarahiran, C. (2023). STEM education for developing undergraduates’ 21st century skills. Journal of Multidisciplinary in Social Sciences, 17(3), 82–87. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sduhs/article/view/268226 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
75. NSB. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (NSB 14-01). National Science Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565774.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
76. NSF. (2023). NSF Directorate for STEM Education Strategic Plan: 2023–2028. https://www.nsf.gov/ehr/NSF_EDU_StrategicPlan_2023_2028.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
77. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557
78. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C., & Nelson, C. (2015). A model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1067-1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1017863
79. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. b.). McGraw-Hill.
80. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
81. Oh, Y. J., Jia, Y., Lorentson, M., & LaBanca, F. (2013). Development of the educational and career interest scale in science, technology, and mathematics for high school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 780–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9430-8
82. Osborne, J. W. & Jones, B. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school: How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9151-1
83. Pattison, S., Ramos-Montañez, S., & Svarovsky, G. (2022). Family values, parent roles, and life challenges: Parent reflections on the factors shaping long‐term interest development for young children and their families participating in an early childhood engineering program. Science Education, 106(6), 1568-1604. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21763
84. Paul, K. M., Maltese, A. V., & Svetina-Valdivia, D. (2020). Development and validation of the role identity surveys in engineering (RIS-E) and STEM (RIS-STEM) for elementary students. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00243-2
85. Playton, S. C., Childers, G. M., & Hite, R. L. (2024). Measuring STEM career awareness and interest in middle childhood STEM learners: Validation of the STEM future-career interest survey (STEM future-CIS). Research in Science Education, 54(2), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10131-8
86. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
87. Rezayat, F. & Sheu, M. (2020). Attitude and readiness for stem education and careers: A comparison between American and Chinese students. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2018-0200
88. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
89. Sáinz, M. & Eccles, J. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.005
90. Saw, G., Chang, C.-N., & Chan, H.-Y. (2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 525-531. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18787818
91. 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. http://www.mpr-online.de sayfasından erişilmiştir.
92. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
93. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3. b.). Routledge. Schweingruber, H., Pearson, G., & Honey, M. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
94. Semerci, N. & Özçelik, C. (2023). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin STEM mesleklerine ilgilerinin belirlenmesi. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(15), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.57135/jier.1316816
95. Šimunović, M. & Babarović, T. (2021). The role of parental socializing behaviors in two domains of student STEM career interest. Research in Science Education, 51(4), 1055–1071. https://doi.org/1055-1071. 10.1007/s11165-020-09938-6
96. Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x
97. Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1
98. Sya’bandari, Y., Aini, R., Rusamana, A., & Ha, M. (2021). Indonesian students’ STEM career motivation: A study focused on gender and academic level. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1), 012037. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1742-6596/1957/1/012029
99. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. b.). Pearson.
100. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128690
101. Timur, B. & Kurt, B. K. (2020). STEM Eğitimi Kullanımına Yönelik Umut ve Amaçlar Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 166-189. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1055195
102. Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 341–363. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/32311 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
103. Uğraş, M. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen-teknoloji-mühendislik-matematik (FeTeMM) mesleklerine yönelik ilgileri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 14(1), 751-774. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14629
104. Wang, M. & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
105. Wyss, V. L., Heulskamp, D., & Siebert, C. J. (2012). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 501-522. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ997137.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
106. Yamani, N. & Almazroa, H. (2024). Exploring career interest and STEM self-efficacy: Implications for promoting gender equity. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1402933. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1402933
107. Yerdelen, S., Kahraman, N., & Taş, Y. (2016). Low socioeconomic status students' STEM career interest in relation to gender, grade level, and STEM attitude. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 59-74. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/623 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
108. Yıldırım, H. & Gelmez-Burakgazi, S. (2020). Türkiye’de STEM eğitimi konusunda yapılan çalışmalar üzerine bir araştırma: Meta-sentez çalışması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, 291-314. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.590319