SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yükseköğretim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

Adaptation of the Engineering Professional Responsibility Assessment Tool (EPRA) to Turkish Engineering Students

Mühendislik Mesleki Sorumluluk Değerlendirme Aracının (MSDA) Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması

Güneş Korkmaz(İSTANBUL MEDENİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9060-5972
Çetin Toraman(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5319-0731
Engin Demir(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6280-5467
Pages
337–352
Publication Date
2025-08-07
🏛️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)

The marginal reliability coefficient from the IRT was 0.98, while the Cronbach Alpha within the CTT was 0.97 and the Omega was 0.97.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There has been a significant shift in engineering education due to societal transformation, evolving industry expectations, and sustainability concerns.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Consequently, new competencies have been incorporated into engineering curricula, with ethics education emphasizing social responsibility as a core competency for students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The marginal reliability coefficient from the IRT was 0.98, while the Cronbach Alpha within the CTT was 0.97 and the Omega was 0.97.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yükseköğretim · Mühendislik Eğitim Programı · Sosyal Sorumluluk

Abstract

There has been a significant shift in engineering education due to societal transformation, evolving industry expectations, and sustainability concerns. Consequently, new competencies have been incorporated into engineering curricula, with ethics education emphasizing social responsibility as a core competency for students. This paper aims to adapt the “Engineering Professional Responsibility Assessment (EPRA)” to Turkish culture. Data were obtained from two different groups. The participants in the 1st group consisted of 490 students from the faculty of engineering and the second group consisted of 747 students. The original scale consists of 51 items and 8 factors. Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed to examine the construct validity of the scale. As a result of EFA, some items were removed from the scale, and a three-factor structure with 25 items was obtained. The adapted scale is a reliable measurement tool that can be used by engineering educators and researchers to make inferences about students’ social responsibility levels. The adapted scale proves to be a reliable measurement tool, offering insights into students’ levels of social responsibility for engineering educators and researchers. The reliability values within CTT and IRT also support each other. The marginal reliability coefficient from the IRT was 0.98, while the Cronbach Alpha within the CTT was 0.97 and the Omega was 0.97.

Özet

Toplumsal dönüşüm, gelişen endüstri beklentileri ve sürdürülebilirlik endişeleri nedeniyle mühendislik eğitiminde önemli bir değişim yaşanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, öğrenciler için temel bir yeterlilik olarak sosyal sorumluluğu vurgulayan etik eğitimiyle birlikte mühendislik eğitim programında yeni yeterlilikler dahil edilmiştir. Bu makale “Mühendislik Mesleki Sorumluluk Değerlendirmesi (EPRA)”nın Türk kültürüne uyarlanmasını amaçlamaktadır. Veriler iki farklı gruptan elde edilmiştir. 1. gruptaki katılımcılar 490 mühendislik fakültesi öğrencisinden, ikinci gruptaki katılımcılar ise 747 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Orijinal ölçek 51 madde ve 8 faktörden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini incelemek amacıyla Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. AFA sonucunda bazı maddeler ölçekten çıkarılarak 25 maddelik üç faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Uyarlanan ölçek, mühendislik eğitimcileri ve araştırmacılar tarafından öğrencilerin sosyal sorumluluk düzeylerine ilişkin çıkarımlarda bulunmak amacıyla kullanılabilecek güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır. Uyarlanan ölçeğin, mühendislik eğitimcileri ve araştırmacılar için öğrencilerin sosyal sorumluluk düzeylerine ilişkin bilgiler sunan güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu kanıtlanmıştır. CTT ve IRT içerisindeki güvenilirlik değerleri de birbirini desteklemektedir. IRT’den elde edilen marjinal güvenirlik katsayısı 0,98, CTT içindeki Cronbach Alpha 0,97 ve Omega 0,97 olarak bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Korkmaz, G., Toraman, Ç., Demir, E. (2025). Adaptation of the Engineering Professional Responsibility Assessment Tool (EPRA) to Turkish Engineering Students. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1466372

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Bakan, J. (2012). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Hachette UK.
  2. Başer, E., & Kılınç, E. (2015). Global social responsibility scale: Validity and reliability study. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 5(3), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.57328
  3. Berg, D. R., & Lee, T. (2016). Incorporation of liberal education into the engineering curriculum at a polytechnic. EngrXiv. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25664
  4. Bielefeldt, A. R., & Canney, N. E. (2016). Changes in the social responsibility attitudes of engineering students over time. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1535–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9706-5
  5. Biswas, W. K. (2012). The importance of industrial ecology in engineering education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211818
  6. Bombaerts, G. (2020). Upscaling challenge-based learning for humanities in engineering education. In Engaging engineering education: SEFI 48th annual conference proceedings (pp. 104–114). https://www.4tu.nl/cee/Publications/556-sefi2020-bombaerts.pdf
  7. Byrne, E. P., Desha, C. J., Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Hargroves, K. (2010). Engineering education for sustainable development: A review of international progress. In International Symposium for Engineering Education. https://hdl.handle.net/10468/372
  8. Canney, N. E. (2013). Assessing engineering students’ understanding of personal and professional social responsibility [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Colorado at Boulder. https://scholar.colorado.edu/downloads/7h149q00t
  9. Canney, N. E., & Bielefeldt, A. R. (2016). Validity and reliability evidence of the engineering professional responsibility assessment tool. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(3), 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20124
  10. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). MIRT: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  11. Christie, M., & de Graaff, E. (2017). The philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of Active Learning in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1254160
  12. Conlon, E. (2008). The new engineer: between employability and social responsibility. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790801996371
  13. Demirören, M. (2019). Medical education and social responsibility. Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi, 28(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.17942/sted.447352
  14. Duarte, A. J., Malheiro, B., Arnó, E., Perat, I., Silva, M. F., Fuentes-Durá, P.,. & Ferreira, P. (2019). Engineering education for sustainable development: The European Project Semester approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 63(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2019.2926944
  15. Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
  16. Ewest, T. (2015). The relationship between transformational leadership practices and global social responsibility. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21360
  17. Flannery, W. P., Reise, S. P., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). An item response theory analysis of the general and academic scales of the self-description questionnaire II. Research in Personality, 29(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1010
  18. Guerra, A. (2012). What are the common knowledge & competencies for Education for Sustainable Development and for Engineering Education for Sustainable Development? In Engineering Education 2020: Meet the Future: SEFI 40th annual conference. SEFI: European Association for Engineering Education. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/75672210/055.pdf
  19. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications.
  20. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological test: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229–244. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399291
  21. Hickling-Hudson, A. (1988). Toward communication praxis: Reflections on the pedagogy of Paulo Freire and educational change in Grenada. Journal of Education, 170(2), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574881700020
  22. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60. https://arrow.dit.ie/libart/4
  23. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  24. Hudson, A. H. (2016). Striving for a better world: Lessons from Freire in Grenada, Jamaica and Australia. In P. McLaren & A. Nocella (Eds.), International critical pedagogy reader (pp. 253-266). Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group.
  25. Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., & Varon, R. K. (2009). Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time. The New Media Consortium. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182083/?nl=1
  26. Kamp, L. (2006). Engineering education in sustainable development at Delft University of Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9), 928–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.036
  27. Kastenhofer, K., Lansu, A., van Dam-Mieras, R., & Sotoudeh, M. (2010). The contribution of university curricula to engineering education for sustainable development. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 19(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.19.1.10
  28. Kealy, T. (2020). Evaluating sustainable development and corporate social responsibility projects: An ethnographic approach. Springer Nature.
  29. Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. SAGE.
  30. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
  31. Mathebula, M. (2018). Engineering education for sustainable development: A capabilities approach. Routledge.
  32. Narain, S. (2015). The emergence of a new area of legal practice: Corporate social responsibility. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2729256
  33. Orgev, C., & Demir, H. (2020). Global warming: A study on the determination of global social responsibility levels of final year students in faculties of medicine in Turkey. International Journal of Education and Knowledge Management, 3(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37227/IJEKM-2020-02-22
  34. Park, K. M., Meglio, O., & Schriber, S. (2019). Building a global corporate social responsibility program via mergers and acquisitions: A managerial framework. Business Horizons, 62(3), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.01.006
  35. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum.
  36. Rapoport, N. B. (2012). Changing the modal law school: Rethinking U.S. legal education in (most) schools. Dickinson Law Review, 116(4), 1119–1154. https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol116/iss4/6
  37. Schipper, M., & van der Stappen, E. (2018). Motivation and attitude of computer engineering students toward soft skills. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 217–222). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363231
  38. Shulman, L. (2005, February 6–8). The signature pedagogies of the professions of law, medicine, engineering, and the clergy: Potential lessons for the education of teachers [Konuşma metni]. The Math Science Partnerships (MSP) Workshop, Washington, D.C. https://taylorprograms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Shulman_Signature_Pedagogies.pdf
  39. Starrett, R. H. (1996). Assessment of global social responsibility. Psychological Reports, 78(2), 535–554.
  40. Stoneman, R. (2008). Alexander the Great: A life in legend. Yale University Press.
  41. Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55(2), 293–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294411
  42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. baskı). Pearson Education.
  43. Tordai, Z., & Holik, I. (2018). Student’s characteristics as a basis for competency development in engineering informatics education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(4), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i4.8133
  44. Tretter, F., & Löffler-Stastka, H. (2019). The human ecological perspective and biopsychosocial medicine. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(21), 4230. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214230
  45. Weber, O., Diaz, M., & Schwegler, R. (2014). Corporate social responsibility of the financial sector—Strengths, weaknesses, and the impact on sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 22(5), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1543
  46. World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
  47. Zandvoort, H. (2008). Preparing engineers for social responsibility. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802024082
  48. Duarte, A. J., Malheiro, B., Arnó, E., Perat, I., Silva, M. F., Fuentes-Durá, P.,. & Ferreira, P. (2019). Engineering education for sustainable development: The European Project Semester approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 63(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2019.2926944