Journals / Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2025 / Volume: 12 Issue: 4

Turkish Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Study of the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perspectives Scales on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health

Sağlıkta Yapay Zekâ Kullanımına Yönelik Bilgi, Tutum ve Bakış Açıları Ölçeklerinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlama, Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Serpil Emikönel(UŞAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-4645-2454
İbrahim Türkmen(UŞAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-1558-0736
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️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)

Conclusion; The study concluded that the knowledge, attitude, and perspective scales for using artificial intelligence in health are valid and reliable measurement tools in Turkish culture.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Abstract Aim: Artificial intelligence is becoming widespread in healthcare.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This research aims to adapt the knowledge, attitude, and perspective scales on artificial intelligence in healthcare developed by Truong et al. (2023) to Turkish and test their psychometric properties.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion; The study concluded that the knowledge, attitude, and perspective scales for using artificial intelligence in health are valid and reliable measurement tools in Turkish culture.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Artificial intelligence in health · artificial intelligence knowledge · artificial intelligence attitude

Abstract

Abstract Aim: Artificial intelligence is becoming widespread in healthcare. This research aims to adapt the knowledge, attitude, and perspective scales on artificial intelligence in healthcare developed by Truong et al. (2023) to Turkish and test their psychometric properties. Method; This research was conducted as a cross-sectional, descriptive, methodological, and quantitative field study. The research universe consists of 2,554 students studying in health departments at Uşak University. The convenience sampling method was used in the research. Data were collected from 761 health students (336 nursing and 425 associate degree students) who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and research at Uşak University. The research data were collected using the “Personal Information Form” regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of health students and the “Knowledge, Attitude, and Perspective Scales on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare.” A face-to-face pilot study was conducted with 50 health students to test the comprehensibility of the scales. Language, scope, and structure validity analyses were performed to determine the validity of the scales. “Cα, AVE and CR values, item-total correlations, 27% sub-upper group comparisons and test-retest” analyses were performed for the reliability of the scales. SPSS and AMOS programs were used to analyze the data. Results; The scales were translated into Turkish after five stages to ensure language validity. 11 experts were consulted regarding content validity, and the item content validity ratio ranged between 0.73 and 1.00. The exploratory factor analysis determined that the knowledge scale for using artificial intelligence in health was six items and one dimension, the attitude scale was 16 items and three dimensions, and the perspective scale was seven items and one dimension. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the scale structures obtained in the exploratory factor analysis had acceptable fit index values. The Cα and CR values of the scales were higher than 0.70, AVE values were higher than 0.50, and item-total correlations were higher than 0.30. It was determined that there was a significant difference in the item comparison of the participants' 27% lower and upper groups. There was no significant difference in the test-retest analysis. Conclusion; The study concluded that the knowledge, attitude, and perspective scales for using artificial intelligence in health are valid and reliable measurement tools in Turkish culture.

Özet

Öz Giriş ve Amaç: Yapay zekânın sağlık hizmetlerinde kullanımı yaygınlaşmaktadır. Bu araştırmada, Truong ve arkadaşları (2023) tarafından geliştirilen sağlıkta yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik bilgi, tutum ve bakış açısı ölçeklerinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin test edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu araştırma kesitsel, tanımlayıcı, metodolojik ve nicel bir saha araştırması olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın evrenini, Uşak Üniversitesi’ndeki sağlık bölümlerinde öğrenim gören 2.554 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veriler, araştırmaya katılmayı gönüllü olarak kabul eden ve Uşak Üniversitesi’nde öğrenim gören 761 sağlık öğrencisinden (336 hemşirelik ve 425 ön lisans öğrencisi) toplanmıştır. Araştırma verileri sağlık öğrencilerinin sosyo-demografik özelliklerine ilişkin “Kişisel Bilgi Formu” ve “Sağlıkta Yapay Zekâ Kullanımına Yönelik Bilgi, Tutum ve Bakış Açısı Ölçekleri” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Ölçeklerin anlaşılırlığının test edilmesine yönelik 50 sağlık öğrencisiyle yüzyüze pilot çalışma yürütülmüştür. Ölçeklerin geçerliğine yönelik dil, kapsam ve yapı geçerliği analizleri yapılmıştır. Ölçeklerin güvenilirliğine yönelik “Cα, AVE ve CR değerleri, madde-toplam korelasyonları, %27’lik alt-üst grup karşılaştırmaları ve test-tekrar test” analizleri yapılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde SPSS ve AMOS programları kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Ölçekler dil geçerliğinin sağlanması için beş aşama sonucunda Türkçe’ye çevrilmiştir. Kapsam geçerliği kapsamında 11 uzmandan görüş alınmış olup madde kapsam geçerlik oranı 0,73 ile 1,00 arasında değişmektedir. Yapılan açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda sağlıkta yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik bilgi ölçeğinin 6 madde ve tek boyutlu, tutum ölçeğinin 16 madde ve üç boyutlu, bakış açısı ölçeğinin 7 madde ve tek boyutlu olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analiz sonucunda ölçeklerin açıklayıcı faktör analizinde elde edilen yapılarının kabul edilebilir uyum indeks değerlerine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeklerin Cα ve CR değerlerinin 0,70’den AVE değerlerinin 0,50’den, madde-toplam korelasyonlarının 0,30’dan yüksek olduğu görülmektedir. Katılımcılardan %27’lik alt ve üst grup madde karşılaştırmasında anlamlı farklılık olduğu, test-tekrar test analizi sonucunda ise anlamlı farklılık olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Araştırmada, sağlıkta yapay zekâ kullanımına yönelik bilgi, tutum ve bakış açısı ölçeklerinin Türk kültüründe geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Emikönel, S., Türkmen, İ. (2025). Turkish Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Study of the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perspectives Scales on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Volume: 12 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.1653437

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Tekin, E., & Emikönel, S. (2023). Comparison of Mobile Health Application Examples in Turkey and the World. In U. Akküçük, Handbook of Research on Quality and Competitiveness in the Healthcare Services Sector (pp.223-236). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8103-5.ch013
  2. Türkmen, İ., & Özkara, B. (2021). Evaluation of Hospital Information Management System with Information Systems Success Model. Journal of Information Technologies, 14(4), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.830213
  3. Cadamuro, J. (2021). Rise of the Machines: The Inevitable Evolution of Medicine and Medical Laboratories Intertwining with Artificial Intelligence-A Narrative Review. Diagnostics, 11(8), 1399. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11081399.
  4. Srivastava, A., Jain, S., Miranda, R., Patil, S., Pandya, S., & Kotecha, K. (2021). Deep learning-based respiratory sound analysis for detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PeerJ. Computer science, 7, e369. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.369
  5. Hamet, P., & Tremblay, J. (2017). Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism, 69, 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2017.01.011
  6. Ak, S. (2023). Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Services Management in Türkiye. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 8(2), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.33457/ijhsrp.1298068
  7. Wang, W., & Siau, K. (2019). Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Automation, Robotics, Future of Work and Future of Humanity. Journal of Database Management, 30(1), 61- 79. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdm.2019010104
  8. Bickman, L. (2020). Improving mental health services: A 50-year journey from randomized experiments to artificial intelligence and precision mental health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47(5), 795-843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01065-8
  9. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521, 436-444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
  10. Esteva, A., Robicquet, A., Ramsundar, B., Kuleshov, V., DePristo, M., Chou, K.,. Dean, J. (2019). A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nature Medicine, 25, 24-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z
  11. Ye, J., Woods, D., Jordan, N., & Starren, J. (2024). The Role of Artificial Intelligence for the Application of Integrating Electronic Health Records and Patient-Generated Data in Clinical Decision Support. AMIA Jointt Summits Translational Science Proceedings, pp. 459–467.
  12. Amisha, P. M., Pathania, M., & Rathaur, V. K. (2019). Overview of artificial intelligence in medicine. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 8(7), 2328-2331. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_440_19
  13. Ahmad, M. N., Abdallah, S. A., Abbasi, S. A., & Abdallah, A. M. (2023). Student perspectives on the integration of artificial intelligence into healthcare services. Digital Health, 9, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231174095
  14. Türkmen, İ., Söyler, A., Aliyev, S., Semiz, T. (2024). Bibliometric and Content Analysis of Articles on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. Journal of International Health Sciences and Management, 10(20): 137-148
  15. Yorgancıoğlu Tarcan, G., Yalçın Balçık, P., & Sebik, N. B. (2024). Türkiye ve Dünyada Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Yapay Zekâ. Mersin Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Lokman Hekim Tıp Tarihi ve Folklorik Tıp Dergisi, 14(1), 50-60. https://doi.org/10.31020/mutftd.1278529
  16. Krittanawong, C., Zhang, H., Wang, Z., Aydar, M., & Kitai, T. (2017). Artificial Intelligence in Precision Cardiovascular Medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 69(21), 2657–2664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.571
  17. Sunarti, S., Rahman, F. F., Naufal, M., Risky, M., Febriyanto, K., & Masnina, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: opportunities and risk for future. Gaceta Sanitaria, 35(1), 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.12.019
  18. Abbas, A., & Cheng, L. (2023). AI in Healthcare: Applications, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Cosmic Bulletin of Business Management, 2(1), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20602.47041
  19. Güzel, Ş., Akman Dömbekçi, H., & Eren, F. (2022). Yapay Zekânın Sağlık Alanında Kullanımı: Nitel Bir Araştırma. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(4), 509-514. https://doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.1140122
  20. Vayena, E., Blasimme, A., & Cohen, I. G. (2018). Machine Learning in Medicine: Addressing Ethical Challenges. Plos Medicine,15(11), e1002689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689
  21. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A Survey on Biasand Fairness in Machine Learning.ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
  22. Novelli, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2023). Accountability in Artificial Intelligence: What it is and how it works. AI & Society, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023- 01635-y
  23. Udegbe, F. C., Ebulue, O. R., Ebulue, C. C., & Ekesiobi, C. S. (2024). The role of Artificial Intelligence In Healthcare: a systematic review of Applications and challenges. International Medical Science Research Journal, 4(4), 500-508. https://doi.org/10.51594/imsrj.v4i4.1052.
  24. Allam, R. M., Abdelfatah, D., Khalil, M. I., Elsaieed, M. M., & El Desouky, E. D. (2024). Medical students and house officers' perception, attitude and potential barriers towards artificial intelligence in Egypt, cross sectional survey. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 1244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06201-8
  25. Satılmış, Ö. B. (2024). Çocuk Diş Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Yapay Zekanın Kullanımı. Türkiye Sağlık Bilimleri ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(3), 53-61.https://doi.org/10.51536/tusbad.1589543
  26. Yılmaz, E., & Uslu, Y. (2025). Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Yapay Zeka Entegrasyonu: Sosyo-Teknik Faktörlerin SWARA ve AHP Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 34(Özel Sayı), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1652007
  27. Park, J., Woo, S. E., & Kim, J. (2024). Attitudes towards artificial intelligence at work: Scale development and validation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(3), 920-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12502
  28. Kansal, R., Bawa, A., Bansal, A., Trehan, S., Goyal, K., Goyal, N., & Malhotra, K. (2022). Differences in Knowledge and Perspectives on the Usage of Artificial Intelligence Among Doctors and Medical Students of a Developing Country: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cures, 14(1), e21434. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21434
  29. Ahmed, Z., Bhinder, K. K., Tariq, A., Tahir, M. J., Mehmood, Q., Tabassum, M. S.,. Yousaf, Z. (2012). Knowledge, attitude, and practice of artificial intelligence among doctors and medical students in Pakistan: A cross-sectional online survey. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 76, 103493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103493
  30. Orhan, M., & Bülez, A. (2022). Sağlık Personellerinin Yapay Zekâ ile İlgili Düşüncelerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Kesit Akademisi Dergisi, 8 (33), 52-69. https://doi.org/10.29228/kesit.66404
  31. Emir, B., Yurdem, T., Özel, T., Sayar, T., Uzun, T., Akar, Ü., & Çolak, Ü. A. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Readiness Status of Medical Faculty Students. Konuralp Tıp Dergisi, 16(1), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.1387826
  32. Atalla, A. D., El-Ashry, A. M., & Mohamed Sobhi Mohamed, S. (2024). The moderating role of ethical awareness in the relationship between nurses’ artificial intelligence perceptions, attitudes, and innovative work behavior: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nursing, 23, 488. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02143-0
  33. Truong, N. M., Vo, T. Q., Tran, H. T., Nguyen, H. T., & Pham, V. N. (2023). Healthcare students' knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives toward artificial intelligence in the Southern Vietnam. Heliyon, 9(12), e22653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22653
  34. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, Seven Edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  35. Aybek, E. C., & Toraman, Ç. (2022). How many response categories are sufficient for Likert type scales? An empirical study based on the Item Response Theory. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1132931
  36. Kusmaryono, I., Wijayanti, D., & Maharani, H. R. (2022). Number of Response Options, Reliability, Validity, and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research: A Literature Review. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 8(4), 625-637. doi:https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625
  37. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J. ve Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods, John Wiley & Sons.
  38. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
  39. Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84-136.
  40. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), ss.23-74
  41. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. (Seventh Edition) Pearson Education.
  42. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (Third Edition). McGraw-Hill.
  43. Kayış, A. (2016). Güvenilirlik analizi. (Ş. Kalaycı Ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, (7. Baskı, ss. 403-419) Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  44. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications, (Fourth Edition), Sage Publications.
  45. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı, Pegem Yayıncılık.
  46. Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
  47. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. SPINE, 25(24), 3186-3191.
  48. Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Psychological Instruments: Some Considerations. Paidéia, 22(53), 423-432.
  49. Arafat, S. M. Y. (2016). Cross Cultural Adaptation & Psychometric Validation of Instruments: Step-wise Description. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1(1), 1-4.
  50. Çapık, C., Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2018). Kültürlerarası Ölçek Uyarlama Aşamaları, Dil ve Kültür Uyarlaması: Güncellenmiş Rehber. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, 26(3), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.26650/FNJN397481
  51. Akaydın Gültürk, E. (2024). Scale adaptation and redevelopment: A review on validity and reliability. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Immunology, 3(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.46439/immunol.3.027
  52. Cruchinho, P., López-Franco, M. D., Capelas, M. L., Almeida, S., Bennett, P. M., & da Silva, M. M. (2025). Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 17, 2701–2728. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714
  53. Arafat, S. M. Y., Chowdhury, H. R., Qusar, M. M. A. S., & Hafez, M. A. (2016). Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of Research Instruments: A Methodological Review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5(3), 129-136. https://doi.org/0.5455/jbh.20160615121755
  54. Jacobson, S. F. (2004). Evaluating Instruments for Use in Clinical Nursing Research. M. Frnak-Stromborg, & S. J. Olsen içinde, Instruments for Clinical Health-Care Research (s. 3-19). London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
  55. Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
  56. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  57. Akgül, A. (2003). Tıbbi araştırmalarda istatistiksel analiz teknikleri SPSS uygulamaları, (2. Baskı) Emek Ofset.
  58. Akgül, A. ve Çevik, O. (2005). İstatistiksel analiz teknikleri: SPSS'te işletme yönetimi uygulamaları, (2. Baskı) Emek Ofset.
  59. Yong, A.G. ve Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
  60. Gálvez Marquina, M. C., Pinto-Villar, Y. M., Mendoza Aranzamendi, J. A., & Anyosa Gutiérrez, B. J. (2024). Adaptación y validación de un instrumento para medir las actitudes de los universitarios hacia la inteligencia artificial. Revista De Comunicación, 23(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.26441/RC23.2-2024-3493
  61. Arafat, S. M. Y. (2016). Validation Study can be a Separate Study Design. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 5(11), 2421-2422.
  62. Tavşancıl, Ezel (2010), Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara, 4. Basım.
  63. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., ve Yıldırım, E. (2012), Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri: SPSS Uygulamalı, Sakarya Kitabevi, Sakarya, 7. Baskı
  64. Esteva, A., Robicquet, A., Ramsundar, B., Kuleshov, V., DePristo, M., Chou, K.,. Dean, J. (2019). A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nature Medicine, 25, 24-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z
  65. Ahmed, Z., Bhinder, K. K., Tariq, A., Tahir, M. J., Mehmood, Q., Tabassum, M. S.,. Yousaf, Z. (2012). Knowledge, attitude, and practice of artificial intelligence among doctors and medical students in Pakistan: A cross-sectional online survey. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 76, 103493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103493