SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1

Adaptation of STEM Career Intention Scale into Turkish and Investigation According to Some Variables

STEM Kariyer Niyeti Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Bazı Değişkenlere Göre İncelenmesi

Betül Gökce Kundakcı(Muş Alparlsan Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9664-6612
Nurten Karacan Özdemir(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2909-6857
Pages
145–196
Publication Date
2025-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that the STEM career intention scores of the students whose parents were involved in the STEM profession were higher.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to conduct the adaptation study of the STEM Career Intention Scale (SCIS) into Turkish and examine the relationships between STEM career intention and students' gender, mother's and father's occupation, and the occupation they intend to choose in the future.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In line with this purpose, within the scope of the adaptation studies of the scale, EFA was conducted with 274 high school students to ensure the validity of the scores obtained from the scale, and it was evaluated the scale consisted of a single factor similar to the original scale and that the single factor explained 73.052% of the structure.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the STEM career intention scores of the students whose parents were involved in the STEM profession were higher.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:STEM Kariyer Niyeti · STEM Kimliği · Lise Öğrencileri

Abstract

The aim of this study is to conduct the adaptation study of the STEM Career Intention Scale (SCIS) into Turkish and examine the relationships between STEM career intention and students' gender, mother's and father's occupation, and the occupation they intend to choose in the future. In line with this purpose, within the scope of the adaptation studies of the scale, EFA was conducted with 274 high school students to ensure the validity of the scores obtained from the scale, and it was evaluated the scale consisted of a single factor similar to the original scale and that the single factor explained 73.052% of the structure. As a result of the CFA conducted with 405 high school students within the scope of the validity studies of the scale, it was revealed that the fit indices of the scale (χ2/df = 3.555; GFI= .954; AGFI= .879; CFI= .939; RMSEA= .08 and SRMR= .0454) showed a good fit in general. In addition, criterion validity and convergent validity analyses showed that the SCIS is a valid measurement tool. Cronbach's Alpha value obtained from the SCIS was calculated as .941. Therefore, the analyses revealed that the scores obtained from the scale are valid and reliable. When the relationships between STEM career intention and variables were examined, it was seen that STEM career intention differed according to gender, and this difference was in favour of male students. It was found that the STEM career intention scores of the students whose parents were involved in the STEM profession were higher. In addition, it was found that students with high STEM career intention had a high tendency to prefer STEM professions in the future, while the STEM fields that students thought to prefer differed according to gender.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı STEM Kariyer Niyeti Ölçeği’nin (SKNÖ) Türkçeye uyarlama çalışmasını yürütmek ve STEM kariyer niyeti ile öğrencilerin cinsiyeti, anne ve baba mesleği ve gelecekte seçmeyi düşündükleri meslek değişkenleri arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda ölçeğin uyarlama çalışmaları kapsamında, ölçekten elde edilen puanların geçerliğinin sağlanması amacıyla 274 lise öğrencisiyle AFA yapılarak, ölçeğin orijinal ölçek ile benzer olarak tek faktörden oluştuğu ve tek faktörün yapının %73,052’sini açıkladığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin geçerlik çalışmaları kapsamında 405 lise öğrencisi ile yapılan DFA sonucunda da, ölçeğin uyum indekslerinin (χ2/df = 3,555; GFI= .954; AGFI= .879; CFI= .939; RMSEA= .08 ve SRMR= .0454) genel anlamda iyi uyum gösterdiği ortaya koyulmuştur. Ayrıca yapılan ölçüte dayalı geçerlik ve yakınsak geçerlik analizleri doğrultusunda SKNÖ’nün geçerli bir ölçme aracı olduğu görülmüştür. SKNÖ’den elde edilen Cronbach Alpha değeri .941 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Dolayısıyla yapılan analizler sonucunda ölçekten elde edilen puanların geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur. STEM kariyer niyeti ile değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler incelendiğinde ise, STEM kariyer niyetinin cinsiyete göre farklılaştığı ve bu farkın erkek öğrenciler lehine olduğu görülmüştür. Anne ve babası STEM mesleğinde yer alan öğrencilerin, STEM kariyer niyeti puanlarının daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca STEM kariyer niyeti yüksek olan öğrencilerin gelecekte STEM mesleklerini tercih etme eğilimlerinin yüksek olduğu bulunurken; öğrencilerin tercih etmeyi düşündükleri STEM alanlarının cinsiyete göre farklılaştığı görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kundakcı, B. G., Özdemir, N. K. (2025). Adaptation of STEM Career Intention Scale into Turkish and Investigation According to Some Variables. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1, 145–196. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1652735

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Abdi, A. I., Mahdi, A. O., Omar, A. M., Asiimwe, C., & Osman, M. A. (2024). Influence of career awareness on STEM career interests among foundation-year students in Mogadishu, Somalia. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1484761. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1484761 Abdi AI, Mahdi AO, Omar AM, Asiimwe C and Osman MA (2024) Influence of career awareness on STEM career interests among foundation-year students in Mogadishu, Somalia.Front. Educ. 9:1484761
  2. Ahmed, W., & Mudrey, R. R. (2019). The role of motivational factors in predicting STEM career aspirations. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1401499
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  4. Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. University of Massechusetts Amherst, Office of Information Technologies.
  5. Alam, M. S., Sajid, S., Kok, J. K., Rahman, M., & Amin, A. (2021). Factors that influence high school female Students' intentions to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 29(2), 839-867. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.2.06
  6. Alonso, A., Laenen, A., Molenberghs, G., Geys, H., & Vangeneugden, T. (2010). A unified approach to multi-item reliability. Biometrics, 66(4), 1061-1068. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40962502
  7. Appel, D., Tillinghast, R. C., & Mansouri, M. (2021, March). Identifying positive catalysts in the STEM career pipeline. In 2021 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 132-139). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEC52395.2021.9763994
  8. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 77–85.
  9. Beasley, T. M., & Schumacker, R. E. (1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.9943797
  10. Beier, M. E., Kim, M. H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., & Gilberto, J. M. (2019). The effect of authentic project‐based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21465
  11. Belsley, D.A. (1991). Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  12. Benek, İ., & Akçay, B. (2018). Hayal Dünyamda STEM! Öğrencilerin STEM Alanında Yaptıkları Çizimlerin İncelenmesi. Journal of STEAM Education, 1(2), 79-107.
  13. Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., Moller, S., & Parler, A. D. (2015). The relationships among high school STEM learning experiences and students’ intent to declare and declaration of a STEM major in college. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700308
  14. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S153275741JT0101-4
  15. Cano, J. A., Tabares, A., & Alvarez, C. (2017). University students’ career choice intentions: Guesss Colombia study. Revista Espacios, 38, 20–29.
  16. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
  17. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis fort he behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  19. De Gioannis, E. (2022). Implicit gender-science stereotypes and college-major intentions of italian adolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 25(5), 1093-1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09709-3 Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C. et al. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 40, 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
  20. Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499
  21. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research at Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
  22. Eren, E., & Dökme, İ. (2024). STEM rol kimlikleri ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 14(1), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1366457
  23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  24. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  25. Francis, J., Johnston, M., Eccles, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J. M., Foy, R., Kaner, E. F. S., Smith, L., & Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for Health Services Researchers. Quality of life and management of living resources; Centre for Health Services Research. http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/1735
  26. Furr, M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. Sage. García-Pérez, M. A., & Núñez-Antón, V. (2003). Cellwise residual analysis in two-way contingency tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403251280
  27. García-Pérez, O., Inda-Caro, M., Fernández-García, C. M., & Torío-López, S. (2020). The influence of perceived family supports and barriers on personal variables in a Spanish sample of secondary school science-technology students. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 70-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1701216
  28. Gitsaki, C., & Robby, M. A. (2015). Evaluating the use of mobile technology in math education: A case study. In Mobile learning and STEM (pp. 29-42). Routledge.
  29. Golino, H. F., & Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLOS ONE, 12(6), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174035
  30. Grimalt‐Álvaro, C., Couso, D., Boixadera‐Planas, E., & Godec, S. (2022). “I see myself as a STEM person”: Exploring high school students' self‐identification with STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(5), 720-745. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21742
  31. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12077
  32. Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Bulut, A. S. (2016). Integrative STEM Teaching Intention Questionnaire: A validity and reliability study of the Turkish form. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education, 12(3), 654-669.
  33. Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
  34. Hambleton, R. K. & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. 1(1), 1-30.
  35. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  36. Hsieh, T. L. (2025). Empowering STEM college students: Exploring influential factors to cultivate career adaptability. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-025-00144-5
  37. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  38. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
  39. Kanematsu, H., M. Barry, D., Kanematsu, H., & Barry, D. M. (2016). The importance of STEM for modern education. STEM and ICT Education in Intelligent Environments, 25-30. https://doi.org/25-30. 10.1007/978-3-319-19234-5_4
  40. Kauffmann, P., Hall, C., Batts, D., Bosse, M., & Moses, L. (2009, June). Factors influencing high school students’ career considerations in stem fields. In 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 14-624).
  41. Kim, Hae-Young. (2017). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 42(2), 152-155. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152
  42. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. Lazarides, R. ve Lauermann, F. (2019). Gendered paths into STEM-related and language-related careers: Girls’ and boys’ motivational beliefs and career plans in math and language arts. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01243
  43. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 45(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
  44. Li, M. (2024). Distal facilitator or proximal support? Exploring the mechanism of how family science capital contributes to Chinese students’ science career intentions aged 16-18. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(4), 1191-1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2212247
  45. Li, T., Kirk, C., & Oseguera, L. (2025). STEM career as a pathway: Stability and dynamics of students’ STEM occupational intention after high school. The Journal of Higher Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2024.2406734
  46. Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, H., Zhang, X., & Li, W. (2024). Enhancing High School Students’ STEM Major Intention Through Digital Competence: A Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Survey. Sustainability, 16(24), 11110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411110
  47. Lustig, D., & Xu, Y. (2018). Family‐of‐origin influence on career thoughts. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12129
  48. Lv, B., Wang, J., Zheng, Y., Peng, X., & Ping, X. (2022). Gender differences in high school students' STEM career expectations: An analysis based on multi‐group structural equation model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(10), 1739-1764. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21772
  49. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of Golden Rules: Comment on hypothesistesting approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  50. Martin-Hansen, L. (2018). Examining ways to meaningfully support students in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(53), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0150-3
  51. Martinez-Martin, P. (2010). Composite rating scales. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 289(1-2), 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2009.08.013
  52. Mendez, S. L., & Watson, K. (2023, June). Why STEM? The External Factors Influencing International STEM Postdoctoral Scholars’ Career Decision. In 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
  53. Minnotte, K.L., & Pedersen, D. E. (2021). Turnover intentions in the STEM fields: The role of departmental factors. Innovative Higher Education, 46, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09524-8
  54. Moore, R., & Burrus, J. (2019). Predicting STEM major and career intentions with the theory of planned behavior. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(2), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12177
  55. Moses, P., Cheah, P. K., Tey, T. C. Y., & Chiew, J. X. (2020, November). Development of the theory of planned behaviour questionnaire: Students’ career choices in STEM. In International Conference on Computers in Education.
  56. National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington: National Academies Press.
  57. Nite, S. B., Margaret, M., Capraro, R. M., Morgan, J., & Peterson, C. A. (2014, October). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A longitudinal examination of secondary school intervention. In 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) proceedings (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
  58. Paul, K. M., Maltese, A. V., & Svetina Valdivia, D. (2020). Development and validation of the role identity surveys in engineering (RIS-E) and STEM (RIS-STEM) for elementary students. IJ STEM Ed, 7, 45 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00243-2
  59. Plasman, J. S., Gottfried, M., & Williams, D. (2021). Following in their footsteps: The relationship between parent STEM occupation and student STEM coursetaking in high school. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00040-0
  60. Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025697
  61. Sağıroğlu, G. (2023). Lise öğrencilerinin STEM kariyer tercihlerinin cinsiyete göre araştırılması: Bir meta analiz çalışması (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
  62. Salleh, S. M. (2013). Factors influencing students’ intentions to study science in upper secondary. International Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 4(2), 1158-1165. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2013.0163
  63. Sarstedt, M., Wilczynski, P., Diamantopoulos, A., & Raithel, S. (2015). A Comparative Evaluation of Different Single-Item Selection Procedures for Construct Measurement. In Marketing Dynamism & Sustainability: Things Change, Things Stay the Same… Proceedings of the 2012 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 427-427). Springer International Publishing.
  64. Sorrells, A. M., Cole, H. A., Pazey, B., & Carter, J. F. (2014). Working with learners with learning disabilities in STEM: Implications for a successful model. STEM education: Strategies for teaching learners with special needs, 53-65.
  65. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  66. Tey, T. C. Y., Moses, P., & Cheah, P. K. (2024). The influence of gender on STEM career choice A partial least squares analysis. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 19(25), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2024.19025 Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK] (2022). Toplumsal Cinsiyet İstatistikleri. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/media/announcements/toplumsal_cinsiyet_istatistikleri.pdf
  67. Van Aalderen‐Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H. & Xenidou‐Dervou, I. (2019). Implicit STEM ability beliefs predict secondary school students' STEM self‐efficacy beliefs and their intention to opt for a STEM field career. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 465-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21506
  68. Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
  69. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy– value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
  70. Wiebe, E., Unfried, A., & Faber, M. (2018). The relationship of STEM attitudes and career interest. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92286
  71. Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.555
  72. Yanagida, T., Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., Solomontos-Kountouri, O., Trip, S., & Bora, C. (2016). Cross-national prevalence of traditional bullying, traditional victimization, cyberbullying and cyber-victimization: Comparing single-item and multiple-item approaches of measurement. International Journal of Developmental Science, 10(1-2), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-150173
  73. Yıldırım, B., & Türk, C. (2018). STEM uygulamalarının kız öğrencilerin STEM tutum ve mühendislik algılarına etkisi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30, 842-884. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.368452