The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 12 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Developing the information literacy self‐efficacy scale
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Own result · 10 Own interpretation · 3 Sources not found · 3 No basis given · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Akkoyunlu and Kurbanoglu, 2003Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Supportedcites Kurbanoglu, 2003 source
The Self-efficacy section says that literature mentioning self-efficacy in the context of information literacy is 'few in number.' It also says the authors found no research on perceived self-efficacy across all aspects of information literacy. This supports the citing sentence's broad claim that research on the topic was scarce. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Kurbanoglu and Akkoyunlu, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 28 construct items, 17 loaded well on three components.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“total, 11 items did not load well.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are missing items in the refined versions of the scale (such as 'oral presentation' for the communication category).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The emergence of the positive correlation of the subscales (see Tables IV and V) suggested that both 28-item and 17-item scales could be considered to measure the underlying construct of efficacy”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the elimination of 12 items (C10, C14, C15, D17, D18, D19, D20, D22, E27, E28, F31, F38) item validity indices of which are less than 0.20, median of the item validity for the rest of the scale increased to 0.495.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internal consistency of the 40-item scale as calculated by Cronbach's alpha was quite high (0,84).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further refinement based on principal component analysis indicated three major components, which allow approaching information literacy skills regarding to their complexity levels.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discrimination indices of the 40 items in the scale ranged from 2 0.397 to 0.876.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alpha reliability coefficient (0,78) signifying that the scale was reliable.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A 28-item refined version of the scale was found highly reliable and of reasonable length.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Undoubtedly, classifying information literacy skills from basic to advanced enables information literacy instructors to address them accordingly in their instruction programs”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Component 2 was labeled as basic information literacy skills. The five items loaded on this component were related to finding and using information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of an appropriate measure of self-efficacy for information literacy will enable individuals 'at risk' to be identified.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, both the subscale scores and the total score can be used to assess efficacy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previously published definitions and standards for information literacy were carefully considered and compared.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Doyle, 1994
- Not matchedcites 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.
- Not matchedcites Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low self-efficacy may be a significantly limiting factor for individuals exploring information problem-solving skills vital for lifelong learning.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants included randomly chosen 415 teachers from various branches. The response rate of the participants was 90 percent (374 teachers)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 19,180
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1978) · Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4 · Cited by 10,586
Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1 · Cited by 6,839 · cited 1×
“) and teaching efficacy (see, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001”
BackgroundComputer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249688 · Cited by 6,553
Self-efficacy and educational development
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527692.009 · Cited by 1,002
O’Leary, A. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90172-x · Cited by 802
Reliability and Factorial Validity of Computer Attitude Scales
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164484442033 · Cited by 615
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.2190/jgjr-0kvl-hrf7-gcnv · Cited by 506
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Items 101–200 of 340
Özbıçakçı, Ş., Gezer, N., & Bilik, Ö. (2014) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2014.10.008 · Cited by 17
TIC et éducation : avantages, défis et perspectives futures
Karsenti, T. P., & Collin, S. M. (2013) · Éducation et francophonie · doi:10.7202/1015056ar · Cited by 17
Understanding information literacy among doctoral students: An ILDoc model and assessment tool
Paul, M., Deja, M., Kisilowska, M., Głowacka, E., Świgoń, M., & Wojciechowska, M. D. (2024) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102855 · Cited by 16
White, C., Breslow, L., & Hastings, D. E. (2015) · International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1109/icl.2015.7318126 · Cited by 16
Stokes, P., Priharjo, R., & Urquhart, C. J. (2021) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-09-2020-0158 · Cited by 16
Akakpo, M. G., Bokpin, H. A., & Hagan, S. (2024) · Oxford Open Climate Change · doi:10.1093/oxfclm/kgae015 · Cited by 15
Toker, Ş. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10673-2 · Cited by 15
Michelot, F., Béland, S., & Poëllhuber, B. (2022) · Higher Education Skills and Work-based Learning · doi:10.1108/heswbl-10-2021-0191 · Cited by 18
Post‐graduate health promotion students assess their information literacy
Hodgens, C., Sendall, M. C., & Evans, L. (2012) · Reference Services Review · doi:10.1108/00907321211254670 · Cited by 15
Leiviska, E., Pezaro, S., Kneafsey, R., Morini, L., & DeWinter, A. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106701 · Cited by 14
KANITA DAYALI UYGULAMA ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI
ÇAY, M., & Daşbaş, S. (2020) · Toplum ve sosyal hizmet(Online)/Toplum ve sosyal hizmet · doi:10.33417/tsh.733462 · Cited by 14
The Information Literacy Self-efficacy of Disadvantaged Teachers in South Africa
Zinn, S. (2013) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_27 · Cited by 14
Dahlqvist, C. (2020) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-200400 · Cited by 14
Evaluación y Formación en Competencias Informacionales en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria
Abad, F. M. (2013) · Gredos (University of Salamanca) · doi:10.14201/gredos.121869 · Cited by 14
Decoding responsible AI use: the influence of digital literacy and ethical awareness
Pramod, D. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2592371 · Cited by 17
Effect of Information Literacy on Academic Performance of Business Students in Pakistan
Mughari, S., Naveed, M. A., & Rafique, G. M. (2023) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libri-2023-0030 · Cited by 13
Prabowo, T. T., Sitthiworachart, J., & Lo, C. K. (2024) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2024.101281 · Cited by 13
Mughari, S., Naveed, M. A., & Rafique, G. M. (2024) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-09-2023-0478 · Cited by 13
Banaei, M., Hosseini, S., Alizadeh, S., Roozbeh, N., Jahanshahloo, B., Ghasemi, E., & Ghasemi, V. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318002 · Cited by 13
Lerdpornkulrat, T., Poondej, C., & Koul, R. (2017) · International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education · doi:10.4018/ijicte.2017040103 · Cited by 13
Keshavarz, H., Vafaeian, A., & Shabani, A. (2021) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-12-2020-0315 · Cited by 13
Kultawanich, K., Koraneekij, P., & Na-Songkhla, J. (2015) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.764 · Cited by 13
Undergraduate student information self-efficacy and library intervention
Tang, Y., & Tseng, H. (2017) · Library Review · doi:10.1108/lr-04-2017-0040 · Cited by 13
Exploring adaptive information sharing from the perspective of cognitive switching
Zha, X., Yang, H., Yan, Y., Yan, G., Huang, C., & Liu, K. (2019) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-07-2018-0176 · Cited by 13
Web Self-efficacy: A Psychological Prerequisite for Web Literacy
Keshavarz, H. (2020) · Webology · doi:10.14704/web/v17i1/a209 · Cited by 13
Durodolu, O. O., & Ocholla, D. N. (2017) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libri-2016-0104 · Cited by 13
Melchior, C., Warin, T., & Oliveira, M. F. D. A. (2025) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123969 · Cited by 13
Peled, Y., Kurtz, G., & Avidov‐Ungar, O. (2021) · The Electronic Journal of e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ejel.19.3.2217 · Cited by 13
Information discernment and the psychophysiological effects of misinformation
Walton, G., Pointon, M., Barker, J. B., Turner, M. J., & Wilkinson, A. J. (2021) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/gkmc-03-2021-0052 · Cited by 12
Tuncer, M. (2013) · DSpace - FIRAT (Fırat University) · doi:10.5897/err12.122 · Cited by 12
Medaille, A., Beisler, M., Tokarz, R. E., & Bucy, R. (2021) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.82.1.92 · Cited by 12
Hebert, A. (2018) · Evidence Based Library and Information Practice · doi:10.18438/eblip29404 · Cited by 12
Baradaranfard, F., Babaee, S., Boroumand, S., Mosleh, S., Jafari, F., & Binaee, N. (2018) · Jundishapur Journal of Chronic Disease Care · doi:10.5812/jjcdc.68431 · Cited by 12
Nikou, S., Brännback, M. E., Orrensalo, T., & Widén, G. (2020) · Exploring diversity in entrepreneurship · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43453-3_3 · Cited by 12
Workplace information literacy
Widén, G., Ahmad, F., Nikou, S., Ryan, B., & Cruickshank, P. (2021) · Journal of Information Literacy · doi:10.11645/15.2.2812 · Cited by 12
Pfundt, A., & Peterson, L. M. (2024) · Social Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s11218-023-09884-x · Cited by 11
Pečiuliauskienė, P. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101304 · Cited by 11
Geçer, A. K. (2012) · Kocaeli Üniversitesi - AVESİS · Cited by 11
Adaptation, translation, and validation of information literacy assessment instrument
Syazillah, N. H., Kaur, K., & Chowdhury, G. G. (2018) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24023 · Cited by 11
Nurafifah, F. F., Sudrajat, A., & Akbar, Z. (2021) · International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding · doi:10.18415/ijmmu.v8i8.2952 · Cited by 11
Dumouchel, G., & Karsenti, T. P. (2013) · Éducation et francophonie · doi:10.7202/1015057ar · Cited by 11
TEACHER CANDIDATES' INFORMATION LITERACY SELF-EFFICACY
Adalıer, A., & Serin, O. (2016) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 11
Abunadi, I. (2018) · Information Technology and Libraries · doi:10.6017/ital.v37i4.9750 · Cited by 11
Khalil, S. A., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2020) · International Journal of Organizational Leadership · doi:10.33844/ijol.2020.60481 · Cited by 11
Information Technology Literacy Impact on Research Results Publication
Ali, M. I., Patak, A. A., Rauf, B. A., Abduh, A., Tahir, M., Yasdin, Y., Bassey, S. A., Hassan, Z., Nurwahidah, & Basalama, N. (2022) · International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering and Information Technology · doi:10.18517/ijaseit.12.1.14948 · Cited by 11
Enhancement of Higher Degree Candidates’ Research Literacy: A Pilot Study of International Students
Han, J., & Schuurmans-Stekhoven, J. B. (2016) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-016-0324-z · Cited by 11
Mayer, A. (2018) · Cogent Medicine · doi:10.1080/2331205x.2018.1545378 · Cited by 11
Information Literacy Skills in the Workplace: A Study of Police Officers
Kilic, O. (2010) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · doi:10.12794/metadc31537 · Cited by 11
Exploring the Dimensions of Self Efficacy Scale for Information Literacy
Shim, W.-S., Ahn, H.-Y., Kim, H., & Kim, S. (2009) · Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science · doi:10.4275/kslis.2009.43.4.307 · Cited by 10
Taking Initiative in the Age of Assessment
Boyd, J., Morgan, M., Ortiz, A., & Anderson, L. B. (2013) · Communication Teacher · doi:10.1080/17404622.2013.865771 · Cited by 10
Pengembangan Instrumen Pengukuran Kemampuan Literasi Informasi Berbasis Efikasi Diri (Self Efficacy)
Prasetyawan, Y. Y. (2018) · Anuva Jurnal Kajian Budaya Perpustakaan dan Informasi · doi:10.14710/anuva.2.3.273-279 · Cited by 10
Kokić, I. B., & Novosel, V. (2014) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_54 · Cited by 10
Tuncer, M., & Balci, K. (2013) · Journal of Studies in Education · doi:10.5296/jse.v3i4.4212 · Cited by 10
Development of Youth Information Hygiene Skills: The Gap Between the Self-Assessment and Real State
Руденко, Ю. О., Drushlyak, M. G., Naboka, O. H., Proshkin, V., & Семеніхіна, О. В. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82243-8_5 · Cited by 9
Pinto, M., Fernández-Pascual, R., Lopes, C., Antunes, M. D. L., & Sanches, T. (2020) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-04-2020-0103 · Cited by 9
Information literacy self-efficacy versus performance: Secondary students
Spisak, J. (2022) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/09610006221081847 · Cited by 9
Ackermans, K., Bakker, M., Gorissen, P., van Loon, A., Kral, M., & Camp, G. (2023) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12924 · Cited by 12
Information Literacy Skills of Academic Staff in Nigerian Federal Universities
Okiki, O. C., & Mabawonku, I. (2013) · International Journal of Library Science™ · Cited by 9
Students' sense of self-efficacy in searching information from the Web: A PLS approach
Keshavarz, H., Givi, M. E., & Vafaeian, A. (2016) · E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) · Cited by 9
Kessler, S. H., Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1723668 · Cited by 9
A construct validity analysis of the concept of psychological literacy
Newell, S. J., Chur‐Hansen, A., & Strelan, P. (2021) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00049530.2021.1922069 · Cited by 9
Ramos, J. P. H., Abad, F. M., Migueláñéz, S. O., & Conde, M. J. R. (2016) · Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación - e Avaliação Psicológica · doi:10.21865/ridep42_39 · Cited by 9
Παρίση, Μ., Komis, V., Lavidas, K., Dumouchel, G., & Karsenti, T. P. (2019) · Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire · doi:10.18162/ritpu-2019-v16n1-05 · Cited by 9
The role of skepticism among adolescents’ online information literacy skills
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Kohnen, A. M., Wusylko, C., Wang, X., Dawson, K., & Sommer, M. (2023) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-02-2023-0010 · Cited by 8
Lifelong Learning and Library: A Must Know Facts for Learners
Oinam, A. C., & Thoidingjam, P. (2019) · Journal of Information Technologies and Lifelong Learning · doi:10.20533/jitll.2633.7681.2019.0016 · Cited by 8
Information literacy training effectiveness on Cambodia's province-based undergraduates
Seng, C., Carlon, M. K. J., & Cross, J. S. (2020) · International journal of comparative education and development · doi:10.1108/ijced-11-2019-0057 · Cited by 8
Dahlqvist, C. (2021) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-200448 · Cited by 8
Choi, W., Park, M. S., & Lee, Y. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24556 · Cited by 8
Detmering, R., & Payette, P. (2021) · Journal of Library Administration · doi:10.1080/01930826.2021.1984138 · Cited by 8
García, G. G., Lucena, F. J. H., Martín, F. D. F., & Rodríguez, J. M. R. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci12010014 · Cited by 8
Self-efficacy and new technology adoption and use among trainee mid-wives in Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria
Awodoyin, A., Adetoro, N., & Osisanwo, T. A. (2016) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9524-7 · Cited by 8
Validation of an instrument on information skills
Universidad de Montemorelos, M., Guillén, J. L. G., & López, J. A. D. V. (2020) · Apertura · doi:10.32870/ap.v12n1.1812 · Cited by 8
Chatzilia, M., & Sylaiou, S. (2013) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_60 · Cited by 8
Behavior toward on-farm food safety: Commercial and exporter pistachio growers
Rezaei, A., Karimi, H., & Ataei, P. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15249 · Cited by 7
Developing a scale for tourism literacy: validity and reliability study
Koç, H., Karacabey, F. A., & YURTSEVEN, E. D. (2023) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2023.2267731 · Cited by 6
Prabowo, T. T., Sitthiworachart, J., Hong, J., & Joy, M. S. (2024) · Library Management · doi:10.1108/lm-07-2023-0061 · Cited by 6
Development of a Scale for Assessing Animal Welfare Literacy in Tourism
Fennell, D. A., & de Grosbois, D. (2024) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875241294044 · Cited by 7
Kayhan, O., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2024) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669241297661 · Cited by 6
Warraich, N. F., Ali, I., & Tahira, M. (2025) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669251325505 · Cited by 6
Sheikhi, Z. P., Moghadam, F. B., & Navidian, A. (2019) · International Journal of Women s Health and Reproduction Sciences · doi:10.15296/ijwhr.2021.20 · Cited by 6
Ekşi, G. Y. (2012) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 6
Reynolds, R. B., Arnone, M. P., & Marshall, T. E. (2009) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.2009.1450460235 · Cited by 6
Koçak, Ö. (2021) · Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science · doi:10.22452/mjlis.vol26no2.4 · Cited by 6
Yılmaz, B., & Soylu, D. (2014) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_67 · Cited by 6
Bilgi Okuryazarlığı, Kolektif Öğretmen Yeterliği ve Etkili Okul: Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi
Uğurlu, C. T., Beycioğlu, K., & Abdurrezzak, S. (2019) · İlköğretim Online · doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506926 · Cited by 6
Facilitating research amongst radiographers through information literacy workshops
Hurt, E., & McLoughlin, A. S. R. (2021) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.842 · Cited by 6
Dataset on positive mental health of Indonesian, Malaysian, and Thailand university students
Chusniyah, T., Jaafar, J. L., Chaiwutikornwanich, A., Kuswandi, D., Firmanto, A., Mustopa, A., & Zahra, G. A. (2020) · Data in Brief · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.106314 · Cited by 6
Zhu, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Li, Y., & Chen, Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1676970 · Cited by 5
Alon, L., & Levkovich, I. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100254 · Cited by 5
Students’ Information Seeking Behavior and Information Needs
Gabriela, F. (2023) · Revista Română de Biblioteconomie și Știința Informării = Romanian Journal of Library and Information Science · doi:10.26660/rrbsi.2022.19.1.01 · Cited by 5
Robertson, S., Burke, M., Olson-Charles, K., & Mueller, R. M. (2022) · Communications in Information Literacy · doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2022.16.2.1 · Cited by 5
Studi Komparatif Literasi Digital Karyawan Bank: Analisis Dampak Perbedaan Spesifikasi Perbankan
Elisabeth, T., Caroline, A., Kornarius, Y. P., & Gunawan, A. I. (2023) · Jurnal Nasional Manajemen Pemasaran & SDM · doi:10.47747/jnmpsdm.v4i3.1443 · Cited by 5
Meulemeester, A. D., & Buysse, H. E. C. (2014) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_38 · Cited by 5
Student attitudes towards library usage and sources at a Turkish university
Fry, L. (2016) · IFLA Journal · doi:10.1177/0340035216645370 · Cited by 5
The Effect of Production Management Course on the Self-Efficacy of Employees
Aka, S., & Akyüz, G. (2015) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.064 · Cited by 5
Information Literacy Education for First-Year Composition Students
Rysavy, M., Michalak, R., & Hunt, K. (2018) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4206-3.ch004 · Cited by 5
Evaluating Sixth Graders' Self-Efficacy in Response to the Use of Educational Technology
Castagnaro, A. (2012) · doi:10.5642/cguetd/69 · Cited by 5
Barbosa-Chacón, J. W., Martínez-Líbano, J., & Lira, M. M. (2025) · Investigación Bibliotecológica Archivonomía Bibliotecología e Información · doi:10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2025.102.58946 · Cited by 4
Tasmim, S., & Atikuzzaman, M. (2025) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669251338833 · Cited by 4
Bashir, I., Talha, Naveed, M. A., Asghar, M. Z., & Rasool, S. F. (2025) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci15070239 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Serap Kurbanoglu, S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A.
- Affiliations
- Hacettepe University (TR)
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-11-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 730-743
- ISSN
- 0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
