SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research on Education and Psychology / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: Special Issue Special Issue

Turkish Adaptation Study of the Trust in Science and Scientists Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Seher Esen(SELCUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3569-1185
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4410-1279
Pages
—
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)

Thus, a measurement tool that can be used in studies of trust in science and scientists has been adapted to the Turkish language and brought to the literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the scale of “Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists” developed by Nadelson et al. (2014) was adapted into Turkish, and it was aimed to perform the validity and reliability studies of the scale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The original scale consists of 5 point Likert-type, single factor, and 21 items.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, a measurement tool that can be used in studies of trust in science and scientists has been adapted to the Turkish language and brought to the literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:scale adaptation · science and scientist · trust

Abstract

In this study, the scale of “Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists” developed by Nadelson et al. (2014) was adapted into Turkish, and it was aimed to perform the validity and reliability studies of the scale. The original scale consists of 5 point Likert-type, single factor, and 21 items. The study was carried out with 236 pre-service teachers selected according to the convenient sampling technique. Some steps were followed in the adaptation of the scale. Content validity, construct validity, convergent and divergent validity were tested and reliability analyses were made. After the adaptation, a 2-factor structure consisting of 10 items emerged. It was accepted that the scale, in which expert opinions were consulted, is a valid and reliable measurement tool. Thus, a measurement tool that can be used in studies of trust in science and scientists has been adapted to the Turkish language and brought to the literature.

🔖

Cite This Article

Esen, S., Küçükaydın, M. A. (2022). Turkish Adaptation Study of the Trust in Science and Scientists Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Research on Education and Psychology, Volume: 6 Issue: Special Issue Special Issue. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1089295

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Blalock, C. L., Lichenstein, M. J., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C., & Toepperwein, M. (2008). In pursuit of validity: a comprehensive review of science attitude instruments 1935–2005. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 961-977. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701344578
  2. Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Michelli, N. M., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex by design: Investigating pathways into teaching in new york city schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285943
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook]. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem Academy
  5. Crocker, J., & Cooper, M. L. (2011). Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334(6060), 1182-1182.
  6. Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria: American Counseling Association.
  7. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
  8. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS. New York, NY: Sage Publication.
  9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  10. Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167-187.
  11. Gauchat, G. W. (2008). A test of three theories of anti-science attitudes. Sociological Focus, 41(4), 337-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2008.10571338
  12. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
  13. Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., & Saito, K. (2015). Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. SAGE Open, 5(3), 2158244015602752. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015602752
  14. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 143-159). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
  15. Irzik, G., & Kurtulmus, F. (2021). Well-ordered science and public trust in science. Synthese, 198(19), 4731-4748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02022-7
  16. Keelan, J., Pavri, V., Balakrishnan, R., & Wilson, K. (2010). An analysis of the human papilloma virus vaccine debate on MySpace blogs. Vaccine, 28(6), 1535-1540. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.060
  17. Kennedy, D. (2008). Science and its discontents: An evolutionary tale. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California
  18. Kieffer, K. M. (1998). Orthogonal versus oblique factor rotation: a review of the literature regarding the pros and cons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  19. Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: a practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oakk, CA: Sage.
  20. Larson, H. J., Cooper, L. Z., Eskola, J., Katz, S. L., & Ratzan, S. (2011). Addressing the vaccine confidence gap. The Lancet, 378(9790), 526-535.
  21. Marcoulides G., & Schumacher R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
  22. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
  23. McCright, A. M., Dentzman, K., Charters, M., & Dietz, T. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 044029.
  24. Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Jarratt Smith, M., Matson, S., Cornell, K., & Husting, V. (2014). I just don't trust them: the development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76-86.
  25. Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908-937. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169
  26. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
  27. Sezgin Selçuk, G. (2019). Tarama yöntemi [Survey mthod]. H.Özmen and O.Karamustafaoğlu (Ed.) İçinde Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri [Research method in education] (pp.140-161). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
  28. Sleeth-Keppler, D., Perkowitz, R., & Speiser, M. (2017). It's a matter of trust: American judgments of the credibility of informal communicators on solutions to climate change. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 17-40.
  29. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
  30. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  31. Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi[Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
  32. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological bulletin, 99(3), 432-442.