Greek translation, cultural adaptation, and psychometric validation of beginners computational thinking test (BCTt)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Due to the short length of the test and its coverage of multiple CT concepts, internal consistency was modest, which is expected for short formative assessments that do not measure a single homogeneous construct, even if the test is reliable.
“Due to the short length of the test and its coverage of multiple CT concepts (sequences, loops, conditionals, and debugging), internal consistency was modest, which is expected for short formative assessments that do not measure a single homogeneous construct, even if the test is reliable [54].”
From Fostering computational thinking in young students through student generated challenges in tangible mobile augmented reality games (2025) · cites this paper as [54]
Cites
A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 · Cited by 29,639 · see citing works
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20147 · Cited by 7,510 · cited 5× · see citing works
“The accepted value of S-CVI/UA is equal to or higher than 0.80 (Shi et al., 2012).”
InfluentialSousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x · Cited by 3,322 · see citing works
ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation
Department of Medical Education, S. O. M. S., & Yusoff, M. S. B. (2019) · Education in Medicine Journal · doi:10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6 · Cited by 2,098 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The average of the I-CVI scores for all items constitutes S-CVI/Ave, but when all the content experts give a rating of 3 or 4, we refer to it as S-CVI/UA (universal agreement; Beck & Gable, 2001; Polit & Beck, 2006; Yusoff, 2019).”
Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies
Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798 · Cited by 647 · cited 2× · see citing works
“CT’s potential to bridge STEM disciplines and foster critical thinking through problem-solving suggests its transformative power for education (Tang et al., 2020 ).”
Arafat, S., Chowdhury, H., Qusar, M., & Hafez, M. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral Health · doi:10.5455/jbh.20160615121755 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
N K, M. (2009) · International e-Journal of Science, Medicine & Education · doi:10.56026/imu.3.1.2 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gardeli, A., & Vosinakis, S. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00899-4 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vourletsis, I., & Politis, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Thessaly (GR)
- Corresponding author
- Vourletsis, Ioannis
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2024-07-13
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 2211-2235
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- OpenAlex
- W4400608545
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Keywords
- computational thinking, Greek translation, cultural adaptation, psychometric validation, elementary school students, assessment of computational thinking, content validity, construct validity, item difficulty and discrimination, test-retest reliability, internal consistency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review