Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 665

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS)

Open access
Korkmaz, Özgen, Çakir, Recep, Özden, M. Yaşar·2017·Computers in Human Behavior

Abstract

It is possible to define Computational Thinking briefly as having the knowledge, skill and attitudes necessary to be able to use the computers in the solution of the life problems for production purposes. In this study, a scale has been developed for the purpose of determining the levels of computational thinking skills (CTS) of the students. CTS is a five-point likert type scale and consists of 29 items that could be collected under five factors. The study group of this work consists of 726 students educated at the levels of associate degree and undergraduate degree with formal education in Amasya University for the first application. For the second application 580 students who were educated in pedagogical formation education via distance education in Amasya University. The validity and reliability of the scale have been studied by conducting exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, item distinctiveness analyses, internal consistency coefficients and constancy analyses. As a result of the conducted analyses, it has been concluded that the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool that could measure the computational thinking skills of the students. In addition; the digital age individuals are expected to have the computational thinking skill, and at what degree they have these skills, the revelation of whether the levels they have are sufficient or not are a requirement. Within this frame, it could be said that the scale could make significant contributions to the literature. We aimed to develop computational thinking scale.A 29 item computational thinking scale was composed.Five factor were emerged for computational thinking scale.Factors are termed Creativity, Cooperativity, Algoritmic- Critical Thinking and Problem Solving.Reliability and validity of the scales are psychometrically good.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 665

Metadata

Authors
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
72
Pages
558-569
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2569623901
Cited by
665
References
6
FWCI
43.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
The paper
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.