CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 340Library Science and Information LiteracyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesInformation Science and Libraries

Developing the information literacy self‐efficacy scale

Open access
Serap Kurbanoglu, S., Akkoyunlu, Buket, Umay, Aysun·2006·Journal of Documentation
DOI 10.1108/00220410610714949
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to describe the development of a scale designed to measure self‐efficacy for information literacy. Design/methodology/approach: Cronbach's alpha, item analysis and item discrimination indices, principal component analysis, varimax rotation, and discriminant validity were used to measure reliability and validity of the scale. A 28‐item refined version of the scale was found highly reliable and of reasonable length. Findings: Further refinement based on principal component analysis indicated three major components, which allow approaching information literacy skills regarding to their complexity levels. Originality/value: The information literacy self‐efficacy scale is recommended to identify individuals with low self‐efficacy beliefs, which may be a significantly limiting factor for them to explore their information literacy skills.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper describes the development and validation of the Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale (ILSES) for measuring self-efficacy beliefs related to information literacy. A 28-item version showed high reliability and is recommended for identifying individuals with low information literacy self-efficacy.

Key findings

  • The initial 40-item scale had Cronbach’s alpha 0.84; after eliminating 12 items with item validity indices below 0.20, the refined 28-item scale had alpha 0.92, and a further 17-item version had alpha 0.82.
  • Principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated three components, labeled basic, intermediate, and advanced information literacy skills; 17 of the 28 items loaded well on these components, while 11 did not.
  • The English version showed test-retest reliability of 0.91 for the 28-item scale and 0.81 for the 17-item scale.
  • Discriminant validity showed positive correlations among subscales for both the 28-item and 17-item scales, suggesting subscale scores and a total score can be used to assess efficacy.

Methods

  • The scale was developed in phases: a literature review produced seven information literacy categories, 40 statements were written, and a seven-point Likert scale was field-tested with 50 teachers, yielding alpha 0.78.
  • Participants were 415 randomly chosen teachers; 374 responded (90%), of whom 62% were female and 38% male, ages 20–52 (mean 34.5, SD 2.2), from five private and 14 public schools, with 60.4% teaching primary and 39.6% secondary level.
  • Analyses included item analysis and discrimination indices, Cronbach’s alpha, principal component analysis with varimax rotation, discriminant validity, and test-retest reliability; the English version was tested with 47 English Translation and Interpretation students.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations section; it notes that the refined versions omit some items, such as “oral presentation” for the communication category, and does not recommend the 40-item scale.
  • Evident from the text: the validation sample is teachers from five private and 14 public schools, and the English version was tested with only 47 translation students, so broader generalizability is not established in the paper.
  • Evident from the text: the scale relies on self-report responses, and no behavioral or external criterion validation is reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/00220410610714949

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 12 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § Self-efficacy and its importance for information literacy and lifelong learning · p. 3

    The number of research studies regarding self-efficacy for information literacy is few.

    “However, the number of the research regarding self-efficacy for information literacy, are few in number (Akkoyunlu and Kurbanoglu, 2003; Kurbanoglu, 2003; Kurbanoglu and Akkoyunlu, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Akkoyunlu and Kurbanoglu, 2003

      Section III (page unavailable) says many studies have examined computer self-efficacy and discusses information-literacy self-efficacy, but it does not say that research on the latter is scarce. Searches for Turkish and English formulations of 'few studies' found no passage establishing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kurbanoglu, 2003 source
    • cites Kurbanoglu and Akkoyunlu, 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase five · p. 7

    Test-retest of the items in the 28-item scale was 0.91.

    “Test-retest of the items in the 28-item and 17-item scales was calculated as 0.91 and 0.81, respectively (see Tables VI and VII).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 4

    Of the 28 construct items, 17 loaded well on three components.

    “Of the 28 construct items, 17 loaded well on three components.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Conclusions and suggestions · p. 8

    The reliability of the 40-item scale was reasonable, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.84.

    “Although the reliability of the 40-item scale was reasonable (0.84), item analysis to find out about the item validity indicated that there were items in the 40-item scale, which either repeated each other or did not measure well-enough the related category.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 5

    In total, 11 items did not load well.

    “total, 11 items did not load well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 5

    Through selection based on factor loading, the 28-item scale was refined to a 17-item scale with calculated reliability of 0.82.

    “Thus, through the process of selection based on factor loading the 28-item scale was refined to 17-item, reliability of which is calculated 0.82.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Further refinement based on principal component analysis indicated three major components, which allow approaching information literacy skills according to their complexity levels.

    “Further refinement based on principal component analysis indicated three major components, which allow approaching information literacy skills regarding to their complexity levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase two · p. 4

    Discrimination indices of the 40 items in the scale ranged from -0.397 to 0.876.

    “Discrimination indices of the 40 items in the scale ranged from 2 0.397 to 0.876.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Conclusions and suggestions · p. 8

    Item analysis indicated that there were items in the 40-item scale that either repeated each other or did not measure well enough the related category.

    “Although the reliability of the 40-item scale was reasonable (0.84), item analysis to find out about the item validity indicated that there were items in the 40-item scale, which either repeated each other or did not measure well-enough the related category.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase one · p. 4

    The alpha reliability coefficient of the field-tested instrument was 0.78, signifying that the scale was reliable.

    “The alpha reliability coefficient (0,78) signifying that the scale was reliable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    A 28-item refined version of the information literacy self-efficacy scale was found highly reliable and of reasonable length.

    “A 28-item refined version of the scale was found highly reliable and of reasonable length.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Conclusions and suggestions · p. 8

    The 28-item scale had the highest Cronbach's alpha among the three versions: 0.92 for the Turkish version and 0.91 for the English version.

    “The results indicated that 28-item scale, with the highest Cronbach's alpha (0.92 for the Turkish version and 0.91 for the English version) among the three versions, could be considered highly reliable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 4

    Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation indicated the presence of three components and that items with Eigenvalue less than 1.5 loaded poorly on all factors.

    “Principal component analysis extraction along with the Varimax rotation indicated the presence of three components as well as indicating items, Eigenvalue is less than 1.5, which loaded poorly on all factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 5

    Classifying information literacy skills from basic to advanced enables information literacy instructors to address them accordingly in their instruction programs.

    “Undoubtedly, classifying information literacy skills from basic to advanced enables information literacy instructors to address them accordingly in their instruction programs”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 5

    Component 3 comprises four items related to synthesizing information and evaluating the information problem solving process and its products, and is labeled advanced information literacy skills.

    “Component 3 was labeled as advanced information literacy skills. This component was made up of four items related to synthesizing information and evaluating the information problem solving process and its products.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 5

    Component 2 comprises five items related to finding and using information, and is labeled basic information literacy skills.

    “Component 2 was labeled as basic information literacy skills. The five items loaded on this component were related to finding and using information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Measuring self-efficacy · p. 3

    The development of an appropriate measure of self-efficacy for information literacy will enable individuals at risk to be identified.

    “The development of an appropriate measure of self-efficacy for information literacy will enable individuals 'at risk' to be identified.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Developing the research instrument - phase four · p. 5

    Both subscale scores and the total score can be used to assess efficacy.

    “Thus, both the subscale scores and the total score can be used to assess efficacy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Developing the research instrument - phase three · p. 5

    The 17-item refined scale exhibits high reliability without excessive length.

    “It is especially worthy that 17-item refined scale, which can be used to determine subjects' self-efficacy levels for information literacy, exhibits high reliability without excessive length.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Notes · p. 9

    Previously published definitions and standards for information literacy were carefully considered and compared.

    “Previously published definitions and standards for information literacy were carefully considered and compared.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Doyle, 1994
    • cites American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Measuring self-efficacy · p. 3

    Low self-efficacy may be a significantly limiting factor for individuals exploring information problem-solving skills vital for lifelong learning.

    “Low self-efficacy may be a significantly limiting factor for individuals exploring information problem-solving skills vital for lifelong learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Participants · p. 3

    Participants included randomly chosen 415 teachers from various branches, and the response rate was 90 percent (374 teachers).

    “Participants included randomly chosen 415 teachers from various branches. The response rate of the participants was 90 percent (374 teachers)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
17 of 17

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Information literacy skills can be meaningfully classified into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.

    “Three components extracted as a result of the principal component analysis were examined and labeled based on Bloom's taxonomy and learning principles.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Low self-efficacy beliefs may be a significantly limiting factor for individuals to explore their information literacy skills.

    “The use of 28-item scale is highly recommended to identify individuals with low self-efficacy beliefs, which may be a significantly limiting factor for them to explore their information literacy skills.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (2004) in Bundy, A. (Ed.), Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework: Principles, Standards and Practices, 2nd ed., ANZIL, Adelaide.
  2. Geer, R., White, B. and Barr, A. (1998), The Effect of an Information Literacy Subject on Teacher Education Students Computing Self‐efficacy, available at: www.cegsa.sa.edu.au/conference/acec98/acec98.htm.
  3. Kurbanoglu, S. and Akkoyunlu, B. (2003), Information Literacy and Teacher Education: A Study Applied in Turkey, poster presented at the 69th IFLA General Conference and Council. Berlin, 1‐9 August.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Serap Kurbanoglu, S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A.
Affiliations
Hacettepe University (TR)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Documentation
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-11-01
Volume
62
Issue
6
Pages
730-743
ISSN
0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/00220410610714949
OpenAlex
W2065978945
Cited by
333
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 8
FWCI
14.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Documentation (publishedVersion)
  • Hacettepe University Institutional Repository (hacettepe.edu.tr) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Science and Libraries
Keywords
information literacy, self-efficacy, scale development, self-efficacy measurement, information literacy skills, psychometric validation, scale refinement

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-05.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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