Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması
Open accessAbstract
Yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı kavramı günümüzde yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin gelişmesine ve her sektörde kullanımının yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte daha da önemli hale gelmiştir. Bireylerin yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı durum ve düzeylerini belirlemek için uluslararası literatürde çeşitli ölçme araçlarının kullanıldığı görülmektedir. Ancak ulusal literatürde bu amaçla geliştirilmiş bir ölçme aracının olmadığı görülmüştür. Bu araştırma, Laupichler ve arkadaşları (2023) tarafından geliştirilen "Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği"nin Türk kültürüne uyarlaması, ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizlerinin gerçekleştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ölçek, ‘teknik anlama (technical understanding)’, ‘eleştirel değerlendirme (critical appraisal)’, ‘pratik uygulama (practical application)’ olmak üzere üç boyuttan ve 31 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Ölçek uyarlama çalışması lise ve üstü eğitim düzeyine sahip 653 genç ve yetişkinden elde edilen veriler ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği'nin üç faktör ve 31 madde içeren yapısının, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına dayanarak, gerçek verilerle uyumlu olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, ölçeğin güvenilirliği ve madde ayırt ediciliği yüksek olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonu için hesaplanan Cronbach α katsayıları, farklı alt faktörler için .97 ile .98 arasında değişmekte olup, ölçeğin geneli için .99 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu bulgular ışığında, Yapay Zekâ Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği'nin bu ölçüm aracının, bireylerin yapay zekâ okuryazarlık düzeylerini değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir seçenek olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma ile, Türkiye’de yapay zekâ okuryazarlığının değerlendirilmesine önemli bir katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmekte olup, bu uyarlama çalışması ile bireylerin yapay zekâ konusundaki okuryazarlık seviyelerinin daha iyi anlaşılması ve gelecekteki araştırmalara temel oluşturulması hedeflenmektedir.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
SNAIL has been revalidated in another three studies, including one with comparative self-assessment gains.
“SNAIL45 was constructed on an elaborate Delphi study63, it has been revalidated in another three studies49–51 including one with comparative self-assessment gains49, it is one of the few scales with evidence of reliability and responsiveness, and it demonstrated good structural validity and internal consistency, which makes it a promising instrument.”
From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [50]
Adaptation studies conducted by Çelebi et al. (2023) and Karaoglan and Yilmaz (2023) demonstrated high levels of reliability in the adapted versions of the scale.
“Adaptation studies conducted by Çelebi et al. (2023) and Karaoglan and Yilmaz (2023) demonstrated high levels of reliability in the adapted versions of the scale, proving the effectiveness of these efforts.”
From Adaptation and psychometric properties of a brief version of the general self-efficacy scale for use with artificial intelligence (GSE-6AI) among university students (2024) · cites this paper as Karaoglan and Yilmaz (2023)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788 · see citing works
Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391 · Cited by 3,833 · see citing works
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019) · California Management Review · doi:10.1177/0008125619864925 · Cited by 2,655 · see citing works
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. (1984) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294170 · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation
Kline, T. (2005) · doi:10.4135/9781483385693 · Cited by 1,588 · see citing works
Basics of Structural Equation Modeling
Maruyama, G. M. (1998) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483345109 · Cited by 1,527 · see citing works
Computing Machinery and Intelligence
Turing, A. M. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_3 · Cited by 1,439 · see citing works
Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023) · Library Hi Tech News · doi:10.1108/lhtn-01-2023-0009 · Cited by 1,355 · see citing works
Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research.
Cole, D. A. (1987) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.55.4.584 · Cited by 1,089 · see citing works
Wang, B., Rau, P.-L. P., & Yuan, T. (2023) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2072768 · Cited by 1,036 · see citing works
Budhwar, P., Chowdhury, S., Wood, G., Aguinis, H., Bamber, G. J., Beltran, J. R., Boselie, P., Lee Cooke, F., Decker, S., DeNisi, A., et al. (2023) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12524 · Cited by 908 · see citing works
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147 · Cited by 745 · see citing works
Self-citationArtificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review
Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101 · Cited by 658 · see citing works
The benefits and challenges of chatgpt: An overview
Deng, J., & Lin, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems · doi:10.54097/fcis.v2i2.4465 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy in Early Childhood Education: The Challenges and Opportunities
Su, J., Ng, D. T. K., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100124 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Hornberger, M., Bewersdorff, A., & Nerdel, C. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100165 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Haverkamp, N., & Raupach, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100338 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979) · Journal of Leisure Research · doi:10.1080/00222216.1979.11969385 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Creativity
Dartnall, T. (1994) · Studies in cognitive systems · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0793-0 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Mertala, P., Fagerlund, J., & Calderon, O. (2022) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100095 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Flasiński, M. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40022-8 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Alan Turing and the development of Artificial Intelligence
Muggleton, S. (2014) · AI Communications · doi:10.3233/aic-130579 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Kong, S.-C., Cheung, W. M.-Y., & Zhang, G. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100223 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Kong, S.-C., Cheung, W. M.-Y., & Zhang, G. (2023) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.30191/ets.202301_26(1).0002 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Copeland, B. J., & Proudfoot, D. (2007) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-044451540-7/50032-3 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Yakovenko, Y., Bilyk, M., & Oliinyk, Y. V. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Modern Electrical and Energy System (MEES) · doi:10.1109/mees58014.2022.10005652 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press Brown.
- Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. 8th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 4974.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of AI literacy scales
Lintner, T. (2024) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-024-00264-4 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Morales-García, W. C., Sairitupa-Sanchez, L. Z., Morales-García, S. B., & Morales-García, M. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1293437 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Seker, O., Kwon, K., & Kocak, O. (2025) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669251336368 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- KARAOĞLAN YILMAZ, F. G., & YILMAZ, R.
- Affiliations
- BARTIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ
- Venue
- Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Dergisi
- Published
- 2023-12-31
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 172-190
- ISSN
- 2687-492X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4390320084
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 12
- FWCI
- 16.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- tr
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Dergisi (publishedVersion)
- DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- AI literacy, AI literacy scale, Turkish adaptation, scale validation, technical understanding, critical appraisal, practical application, high school students, adults, AI literacy assessment, factor structure, item discrimination, reliability statistics, validity, Turkish culture, artificial intelligence in education, AI and society, artificial intelligence in the workplace
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
