SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3

Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Blockchain Awareness and Financial Confidence in the Turkish Financial Sector

Mustafa Özyeşil(BEYKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4442-7087
Havane Tembelo(T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı, İstanbul İl Sağlık Müdürlüğü, Eğitim ve Tescil Birimi)0000-0003-3394-4166
Pages
487–506
Publication Date
2026-07-31
🏛️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)

The results indicate that the scale is not only clear-cut conceptually and statistically, but also provides a consistent measure for further studies regarding the perception and acceptance of technology in the finance domain.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper seeks to develop an empirically tested theoretical model that measures the block chain related awareness, confidence, and perceived relevance regarding finances among employees in the Turkish financial services sector.
📊
Key Findings & Data:From the existing literature on blockchain adoption, the acceptance of fintech, and trust-based investment behavior, the authors developed an initial item pool consisting of 14 items.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that the scale is not only clear-cut conceptually and statistically, but also provides a consistent measure for further studies regarding the perception and acceptance of technology in the finance domain.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:blockchain algısı · finansal güven · ölçek geliştirme

Abstract

This paper seeks to develop an empirically tested theoretical model that measures the block chain related awareness, confidence, and perceived relevance regarding finances among employees in the Turkish financial services sector. From the existing literature on blockchain adoption, the acceptance of fintech, and trust-based investment behavior, the authors developed an initial item pool consisting of 14 items. Content validation was done through experts followed by a pilot. Primary data was collected from 450 finance professionals working in the banking, treasury, risk, and accounting departments of different companies within Istanbul. The questionnaire was filled out by the respondents during the period March to April 2025 and was distributed online. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, while the structure of the underlying scale was investigated by Principal component analysis with oblique rotation. This analysis was complemented with item analysis through corrected item-total correlations and calculation of communalities. The data quality for conducting factor analysis were validated by KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. From the results of the two-factor solution, the total variance explained was 85.83%. The first factor covered perceptions pertaining to blockchain awareness and informational engagement while the second predominately covered confidence in blockchains financial functionality and trustworthiness. The final structure is comprised of 14 items that have high loadings and little redundancy. The results indicate that the scale is not only clear-cut conceptually and statistically, but also provides a consistent measure for further studies regarding the perception and acceptance of technology in the finance domain.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de finansal hizmetler sektöründe çalışanlar arasında blok zinciriyle ilgili farkındalık, güven ve finansal bağlamdaki algılanan önem düzeylerini ölçmeyi amaçlayan, ampirik olarak test edilmiş teorik bir modelin geliştirilmesini hedeflemektedir. Blok zinciri benimsemesi, finansal teknolojilerin kabulü ve güven temelli yatırım davranışına ilişkin mevcut literatür temel alınarak, 14 maddeden oluşan başlangıç madde havuzu oluşturulmuştur. İçerik geçerliği, alan uzmanlarının görüşleri aracılığıyla sağlanmış ve ardından pilot bir uygulama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Birincil veriler, İstanbul’da çeşitli kurumların bankacılık, hazine, risk yönetimi ve muhasebe birimlerinde görev yapan 450 finans profesyonelinden çevrim içi anket yoluyla, Mart–Nisan 2025 döneminde toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı, Cronbach alfa katsayısı kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği, eğik döndürme yöntemi ile yürütülen Temel Bileşenler Analizi (Principal Component Analysis) ile incelenmiştir. Bu analiz, düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonları ve maddeye ait ortak varyans değerlerinin hesaplandığı madde analizi ile desteklenmiştir. Faktör analizine uygunluk, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) testi ve Bartlett küresellik testi ile doğrulanmıştır. İki faktörlü çözümlemeden elde edilen sonuçlara göre toplam açıklanan varyans %85,83 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Birinci faktör, blok zinciri farkındalığı ve bilgiye yönelik katılım algılarını kapsarken; ikinci faktör, blok zincirinin finansal işlevselliğine ve güvenilirliğine dair güven düzeyini kapsamaktadır. Nihai yapı, yüksek faktör yüklerine ve düşük madde fazlalığına sahip 14 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, ölçeğin hem kavramsal hem de istatistiksel olarak açık, tutarlı ve teknoloji algısı ile kabulü üzerine yapılacak ileri çalışmalarda geçerli bir ölçüm aracı niteliği taşıdığını göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özyeşil, M., Tembelo, H. (2026). Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Blockchain Awareness and Financial Confidence in the Turkish Financial Sector. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 487–506. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.202600231

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. 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
  2. Allen, F., Gu, X., & Jagtiani, J. A. (2021). A survey of fintech research and policy discussion. Review of Corporate Finance, 1, 259–339. https://doi.org/10.21799/frbp.wp.2020.21
  3. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ² approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 16(2), 296–298.
  4. Catalini, C., & Gans, J. S. (2016). Some simple economics of the blockchain. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5191-16. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874598
  5. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  6. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
  7. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
  8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  9. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  10. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  11. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  12. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  13. Gan, Q., & Lau, R. Y. K. (2024). Trust in a “trust-free” system: Blockchain acceptance in the banking and finance sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 199, Article 123064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123064
  14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  15. 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
  16. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  17. Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. International Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107831
  18. Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 118–127.
  19. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 6(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.1.84
  20. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
  21. Mohammadi, H., Rezaei, M., & Mohammadi, A. (2021). An investigation of trust-based adoption model for blockchain in supply chain finance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120642
  22. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
  23. Norbu, T., Park, J. Y., Wong, K. W., & Cui, H. (2024). Factors Affecting Trust and Acceptance for Blockchain Adoption in Digital Payment Systems: A Systematic Review. Future Internet, 16(3), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16030106
  24. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  25. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
  26. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  27. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
  28. Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, H., & Zeng, Q. (2020). Understanding the adoption of blockchain-based smart contracts in supply chain finance: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 101972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.003
  29. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  30. Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin.
  31. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  32. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
  33. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
  34. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2018). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends. IEEE International Congress on Big Data, 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigDataCongress.2017.85