SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

Turkish Adaptation of University Students’ Basic Digital Competences Scale

Üniversite Öğrencileri Dijital Yeterlikler Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Gülgün Afacan Adanır(ANKARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0832-1808
Yasemin Gülbahar Güven(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1726-3224
Pages
122–132
Publication Date
2022-04-30
🏛️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)

According to the analyzes conducted in the study, the validity and reliability of the Turkish form of the COBADI scale were verified.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to identify the reliability and validity of the Turkish form of University Students’ Basic Digital Competences 2.0 - COBADI® scale, which was developed based on European Commission’s Digital Competence (DigCom) framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The original version of the COBADI scale is English and consists of 31 items under 4 dimensions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the analyzes conducted in the study, the validity and reliability of the Turkish form of the COBADI scale were verified.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri · dijital okur yazarlık · dijital yeterlik

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the reliability and validity of the Turkish form of University Students’ Basic Digital Competences 2.0 - COBADI® scale, which was developed based on European Commission’s Digital Competence (DigCom) framework. The original version of the COBADI scale is English and consists of 31 items under 4 dimensions. Firstly, the COBADI scale was translated into Turkish and the controls were carried out by field experts. Validity and reliability of the COBADI scale was conducted in a state university of Turkey. Data from 300 students were used within the scope of exploratory factor analysis, and data from 440 students within the scope of confirmatory factor analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis was employed in order to investigate the validity of the scale. Factor naming was carried out considering the results of the exploratory factor analysis and the Digital Competences 2.1 framework of the European Commission. Factors were determined as Digital content development, Information and data literacy, Communication, University's virtual tools and social communication, and Problem solving. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was applied for the construct validity of the Turkish form of the scale. The reliability of the scale was verified by calculating the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients. The internal consistency coefficient of the scale was calculated. According to the analyzes conducted in the study, the validity and reliability of the Turkish form of the COBADI scale were verified.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa Komisyonu'nun Dijital Yetkinlik (DigCom) çerçevesine dayalı olarak geliştirilen Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Temel Dijital Yeterlilikleri 2.0 - COBADI® ölçeğini Türkçeye uyarlayarak, formun güvenilirliğini ve geçerliliğini belirlemektir. COBADI ölçeğinin orijinal hali İngilizce olup, 31 madde ve 4 boyuttan oluşmaktadır. İlk olarak COBADI ölçeği Türkçeye çevrilerek alan uzmanları tarafından kontrolleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. COBADI ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirliği, Türkiye'deki bir devlet üniversitesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi kapsamında 300 öğrencinin verisi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kapsamında 440 öğrencinin verisi kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerliğini araştırmak için açımlayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları ve Avrupa Komisyonu’nun Dijital Yeterlilikler 2.1 çerçevesi göz önüne alınarak faktör isimlendirmesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Faktör 1 Dijital içerik geliştirme olarak, Faktör 2 Bilgi ve veri okuryazarlığı olarak, Faktör 3 İletişim olarak, Faktör 4 Üniversitenin sanal araçları ve sosyal iletişimi olarak, Faktör 5 Problem çözme olarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin Türkçe formunun yapı geçerliliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlık katsayıları hesaplanarak ölçeğin güvenirliği doğrulanmıştır. Yapılan analizlere göre COBADI ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği doğrulanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Adanır, G. A., Güven, Y. G. (2022). Turkish Adaptation of University Students’ Basic Digital Competences Scale. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.990452

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Atman Uslu, N., & Usluel, Y. K. (2019). Predicting technology integration based on a conceptual framework for ICT use in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(5), 517-531. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2019.1668293
  2. Barri, M. A. (2020). Evaluation of digital competency of public university students for web-facilitated learning: The case of Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 13(12), 58-69. doi:10.5539/ies.v13n12p58
  3. Blayone, T. J., Mykhailenko, O., vanOostveen, R., Grebeshkov, O., Hrebeshkova, O., & Vostryakov, O. (2018). Surveying digital competencies of university students and professors in Ukraine for fully online collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(3), 279-296. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2017.1391871
  4. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44. doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  5. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Luxembourg: European Union. doi:10.2760/38842
  6. Choi, S. Y. (2018). A study on the digital competency for the fourth industrial revolution. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 21(5), 25-35. doi:10.32431/kace.2018.21.5.003
  7. Desjardins, F. J., Lacasse, R., & Belair, L. M. (2001). Toward a definition of four orders of competency for the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference. Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (pp. 213-217). Banff: ACTA Press.
  8. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage Publications.
  9. Eger, L., Klement, M., Pisoňová, M., & Petrová, G. (2018). Different user groups of university students and their ICT competence: Evidence from three countries in central Europe. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(5), 851-866. Erişim adresi: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/pdf/vol17/851-866.Eger_JBSE_Vol.17_No.5.pdf
  10. European Commision. (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. Erişim adresi: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2018.189.01.0001.01.ENG
  11. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
  12. García-Martínez, J. A., Fuentes-Abeledo, E. J., & Rodríguez-Machado, E. R. (2021). Attitudes towards the use of ICT in Costa Rican university students: The ınfluence of sex, academic performance, and training in technology. Sustainability, 13(1), 1-11. doi:10.3390/su13010282
  13. Hatlewik, O. E., Gudmundsdóttir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Digital diversity among upper secondary students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital, self-efficacy, strategic use of information and digital competence. Computers & Education, 81(2015), 345-353. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.019
  14. Huang, C. C., Wang, Y. M., Wu, T. W., & Wang, P. A. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217. doi: 10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267
  15. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
  16. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187-200. doi:10.1007/BF02289233
  17. Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  18. Kuzminska O., Mazorchuk M., Morze N., Pavlenko V., & Prokhorov A. (2019). Study of Digital Competence of the Students and Teachers in Ukraine. In: Ermolayev V., Suárez-Figueroa M., Yakovyna V., Mayr H., Nikitchenko M., Spivakovsky A. (eds) Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Research, and Industrial Applications. ICTERI 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1007. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13929-2_8
  19. Le, A.-V., Do, D.-L., Pham, D.-Q., Hoang, P.-H., Duong, T.-H., Nguyen, H.-N., Vuong, T.-T., et al. (2019). Exploration of youth’s digital competencies: A dataset in the educational context of Vietnam. Data, 4(2), 1-37. doi:10.3390/data4020069
  20. López-Meneses, E. et al., (2013). Questionnaire on basic digital skills (COBADI). Erişim adresi: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScG8yUPbueOgKQUYMbSK02mBtvAwnB1nIoCzU1cWFxqOSq92g/viewform
  21. López-Meneses, E., Sirignano, F. M., Vázquez-Cano, E., & Ramírez-Hurtado, J. M. (2020). University students’ digital competence in three areas of the DigCom 2.1 model: A comparative study at three European universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 69-88. doi:10.14742/ajet.5583
  22. Nyikes, Z. (2018). Contemporary digital competency review. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 16(1), 124-131. doi: 10.7906/indecs.16.1.9
  23. Oberländer, M., Beinicke, A. & Bipp, T. (2020). Digital competencies: A review of the literature and applications in the workplace. Computers & Education, 146(2020), 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103752
  24. Özel, M., Timur, B., Timur, S., & Bilen, K. (2013). Öğretim elemanlarının pedagojik alan bilgilerini değerlendirme anketinin Türkçeye uyarlanması çalışması. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 407-428.
  25. Reddy, P., Sharma, B. N., & Chaudhary, K. C. (2020). Measuring the digital competency of freshmen at a higher education institute. Erişim adresi: http://repository.usp.ac.fj/12254/
  26. Romani, J. C. C. (2009). The Information Technologies concept, benchmarking of ICT definitions in the knowledge society. Revista de Estudios de Comunicación, 14(27), 295-318.
  27. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
  28. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
  29. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; How to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 5(2), 18-27. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3205035
  30. Tondeur, J., Howard, S. K., & Yang, J. (2021). One-size does not fit all: Towards an adaptive model to develop preservice teachers’ digital competencies. Computers in Human Behavior, 116(2021), 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106659
  31. Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero Gomez S., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). DigComp 2.0: The digital competence framework for citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model. Luxembourg: European Union. doi:10.2791/11517