Dergiler / İşletme Bilimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

Giyilebilir Teknolojik Ürünlere Güven Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlama ve Geçerlilik Çalışması

Turkish Adaptation and Validity Study of the Trust in Wearable Technological Products Scale

Şükran Karaca(SIVAS CUMHURIYET UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0268-1810
Caner Öniz(SIVAS CUMHURIYET UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7061-1518
Sayfa
348–366
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-23
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) sonuçları modelin kabul edilebilir ve mükemmel uyum sınırları içinde olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Teknolojik gelişmeler, giyilebilir ürünlere olan ilgiyi giderek artırmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu ürünler bireysel farkındalığı artırma ve fiziksel aktiviteyi teşvik etme açısından önemli bir potansiyele sahip olmakla birlikte, kullanıcılarda çeşitli güvenlik ve gizlilik endişelerine yol açmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) sonuçları modelin kabul edilebilir ve mükemmel uyum sınırları içinde olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Giyilebilir Teknoloji · Teknoloji Güven Ölçeği · Geçerlilik

Özet

Teknolojik gelişmeler, giyilebilir ürünlere olan ilgiyi giderek artırmaktadır. Bu ürünler bireysel farkındalığı artırma ve fiziksel aktiviteyi teşvik etme açısından önemli bir potansiyele sahip olmakla birlikte, kullanıcılarda çeşitli güvenlik ve gizlilik endişelerine yol açmaktadır. Veri gizliliği, güvenlik, sistem şeffaflığı, geçerlilik ve teknik yeterlilik gibi unsurlar, kullanıcıların bu teknolojileri benimseme ve sürdürülebilir kullanım niyetlerini doğrudan ya da dolaylı biçimde etkileyebilmektedir. Bu endişeler, kullanıcıların ürünü tercih etmemesine ya da kısa sürede bırakmasına neden olabilmektedir. Bu nedenle tüketicilerin güven algısı ile beklenti ve kaygılarının ölçülmesi, işletmelere ürün geliştirme ve pazarlama stratejileri konusunda yol gösterici olabilir. Bu çalışma, Rupp ve arkadaşları (2018) tarafından geliştirilen “Giyilebilir Teknoloji Güven Ölçeği”nin Türkçeye uyarlanarak geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini incelemektedir. Orijinal ölçekteki 16 madde ve 5 alt boyut, dil uyarlama süreçlerinden geçirilerek Türkçe form oluşturulmuştur. 18 yaş ve üzeri 433 giyilebilir teknoloji kullanıcısından 5’li Likert tipi ölçek aracılığıyla veri toplanmıştır. Yapılan analizler, orijinal yapının Türkçe uyarlamada da korunduğunu göstermiştir. Cronbach’s Alpha katsayısı 0,950 olarak hesaplanmış; bu değer mükemmel düzeyde iç tutarlılığa işaret etmektedir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) sonuçları modelin kabul edilebilir ve mükemmel uyum sınırları içinde olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun giyilebilir teknolojiye yönelik güven algısını geçerli ve güvenilir biçimde ölçebildiğini göstermektedir. Bu alanda Türkçeye uyarlanmış benzer bir aracın henüz bulunmaması, söz konusu ölçeğin literatürdeki önemli bir boşluğu doldurduğuna ve gelecekteki araştırmalara katkı sağlayacağına işaret etmektedir.

Abstract

Technological advancements have steadily increased interest in wearable products. While these products hold significant potential for enhancing individual awareness and promoting physical activity, they also give rise to various security and privacy concerns among users. Factors such as data privacy, security, system transparency, validity, and technical competence may directly or indirectly influence users’ intentions to adopt and sustain the use of these technologies. Such concerns can lead users to avoid the product altogether or abandon it shortly after adoption. Therefore, measuring consumers’ trust perceptions along with their expectations and concerns may serve as a valuable guide for businesses in shaping product development and marketing strategies. This study examines the validity and reliability of the “Wearable Technology Trust Scale,” developed by Rupp et al. (2018), adapted into Turkish. The original scale’s 16 items and 5 subscales were subjected to the necessary language adaptation procedures to produce the Turkish form. Data were collected from 433 wearable technology users aged 18 and older using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The analyses confirmed that the original factor structure was preserved in the Turkish adaptation. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.950, indicating excellent internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results demonstrated that the model fell within acceptable and excellent fit indices. The findings suggest that the Turkish form of the scale can validly and reliably measure trust perceptions toward wearable technology. The absence of a comparable instrument adapted into Turkish in this field indicates that the scale addresses a significant gap in the literature and is poised to contribute to future research.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Karaca, Ş., Öniz, C. (2026). Giyilebilir Teknolojik Ürünlere Güven Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlama ve Geçerlilik Çalışması. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 348–366. https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1684828

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (66)

  1. Adebesin, F. ve Mwalugha, R. (2020). The mediating role of organizational reputation and trust in the intention to use wearable health devices: Cross-country study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(6), Article e16721. https://doi.org/10.2196/16721
  2. Ameen, N., Tarhini, A., Reppel, A. ve Anand, A. (2021). Customer experiences in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, Article 106548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106548
  3. Barrios, L., Oldrati, P., Santini, S. ve Lutterotti, A. (2019). Evaluating the accuracy of heart rate sensors based on photoplethysmography for in-the-wild analysis. Proceedings of the 13th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare içinde (ss. 251–261). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3329189.3329215
  4. Bayık, M. E. ve Gürbüz, S. (2016). Ölçek uyarlamada metodoloji sorunu: Yönetim ve örgüt alanında uyarlanan ölçekler üzerinden bir araştırma. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18394/iid.15648
  5. Beldad, A. D. ve Hegner, S. M. (2018). Expanding the technology acceptance model with the inclusion of trust, social influence, and health valuation to determine the predictors of German users’ willingness to continue using a fitness app. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(9), 882–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1403220
  6. Beldad, A. D. ve Kusumadewi, M. C. (2015). Here’s my location, for your information: The impact of trust, benefits, and social influence on location sharing application use among Indonesian university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.047
  7. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2. bs.). Guilford Press.
  8. Burton-Jones, A. ve Straub, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0096
  9. Choi, J. K. ve Ji, Y. G. (2015). Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 31(10), 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549
  10. Comrey, A. L. ve Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2. bs.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B. ve Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58(6), 737–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00041-7
  12. Cosoli, G., Antognoli, L. ve Scalise, L. (2023). Methods for the metrological characterization of wearable devices for the measurement of physiological signals: State of the art and future challenges. MethodsX, 10, Article 102038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102038
  13. Çulhagil Kır, Ö. ve Yıldırım, F. (2023). Türkiye’de giyilebilir teknoloji ürünleri pazarı ve kullanımına ilişkin nitel bir araştırma. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Girişimcilik Dergisi, 7(13), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.55830/tje.1234801
  14. DeLone, W. H. ve McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
  15. Dhagarra, D., Goswami, M. ve Kumar, G. (2020). Impact of trust and privacy concerns on technology acceptance in healthcare: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 141, Article 104164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104164
  16. Doherty, C., Baldwin, M., Keogh, A., Caulfield, B. ve Argent, R. (2024). Keeping pace with wearables: A living umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in health measurement. Sports Medicine, 54, 2907–2926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2
  17. Dudarev, V., Barral, O., Zhang, C., Davis, G. ve Enns, J. T. (2023). On the reliability of wearable technology: A tutorial on measuring heart rate and heart rate variability in the wild. Sensors, 23(13), Article 5863. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23135863
  18. Ejdys, J. (2018). Building technology trust in ICT application at a university. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(5), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-07-2017-0234
  19. Els, F. ve Cilliers, L. (2017). Improving the information security of personal electronic health records to protect a patient’s health information [Konferans sunumu]. 2017 Conference on Information Communication Technology and Society (ICTAS), 1–6. IEEE. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316899617_Improving_the_information_security_of_personal_electronic_health_records_to_protect_a_patient’s_health_information
  20. Evenson, K. R., Goto, M. M. ve Furberg, R. D. (2015). Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), Article 159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1
  21. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  22. Goodhue, D. L. ve Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/249689
  23. Grand View Research. (2023). Wearable technology market size, share & trends analysis report by product (head & eyewear, wristwear), by application (consumer electronics, healthcare), by region (Asia Pacific, Europe), and segment forecasts, 2023–2030 (Report No. 978-1-68038-165-8). https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/wearable-technology-market
  24. Gu, Z. ve Wei, J. (2021). Empirical study on initial trust of wearable devices based on product characteristics. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 61(6), 520–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2020.1779150
  25. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7. bs.). Pearson Education.
  26. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., De Visser, E. J. ve Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
  27. Haykal, A. P., Suhud, U. ve Wibowo, S. F. (2025). Adoption of wearable technology (smartwatch) for health monitoring: Opportunities and marketing strategies. Greenation International Journal of Economics and Accounting, 3(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.38035/gijea.v3i1.376
  28. Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D. ve Brunswick, G. J. (2019). In automatic we trust: Investigating the impact of trust, control, personality characteristics, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on the acceptance of autonomous vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(19), 1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1572353
  29. Hoff, K. A. ve Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
  30. International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2. bs.). https://www.intestcom.org
  31. Jourdan, T., Debs, N. ve Frindel, C. (2021). The contribution of machine learning in the validation of commercial wearable sensors for gait monitoring in patients: A systematic review. Sensors, 21(14), Article 4808. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144808
  32. Kang, H. ve Jung, E. H. (2021). The smart wearables-privacy paradox: A cluster analysis of smartwatch users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(16), 1755–1768. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1778787
  33. Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS 23 ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  34. Kim, J., Campbell, A. S., de Ávila, B. E.-F. ve Wang, J. (2019). Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring. Nature Biotechnology, 37(4), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0045-y
  35. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4. bs.). Guilford Press.
  36. Lee, J. D. ve See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80.
  37. Lippert, S. K. ve Ojumu, E. B. (2008). Thinking outside of the ballot box: Examining public trust in e-voting technology. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 20(3), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2008070104
  38. Luarn, P. ve Juo, W., Jr. (2010). The role of trust in technology within the TAM in the context of NFC mobile payment. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 31(4), 875–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/02522667.2010.10700000
  39. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self: A sociology of self-tracking. Polity Press.
  40. Madsen, M. ve Gregor, S. D. (2000, 6–8 Aralık). Measuring human-computer trust. G. G. Gable ve M. R. Vitale (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems: ACIS 2000 içinde (Cilt 53, ss. 6–8). Queensland University of Technology.
  41. McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B. ve Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2(2), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353
  42. Methlagl, M., Michlmayr, F. ve Perillo, V. (2023). Technological trust perceptions in wearable fitness technology: A person-centred approach. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 8(4), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-023-00320-7
  43. Montoye, A. H. K., Mitrzyk, J. R. ve Molesky, M. J. (2017). Comparative accuracy of a wrist-worn activity tracker and a smart shirt for physical activity assessment. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 21(4), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2017.1331166
  44. Phelps, J., Nowak, G. ve Ferrell, E. (2000). Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.19.1.27.16941
  45. Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., Andrews, S. ve Joinson, A. (2016). The rise of consumer health wearables: Promises and barriers. PLOS Medicine, 13(2), Article e1001953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953
  46. Polatgil, M. ve Güler, A. (2023). Yapay zekâ okuryazarlığı ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nicel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(2), 99–114.
  47. Radanliev, P. (2025). Privacy, ethics, transparency, and accountability in AI systems for wearable devices. Frontiers in Digital Health, 7, Article 1431246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1431246
  48. Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R. ve Hung, Y.-T. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 241–279. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260210
  49. Rupp, M. A., Michaelis, J. R., McConnell, D. S. ve Smither, J. A. (2018). The role of individual differences on perceptions of wearable fitness device trust, usability, and motivational impact. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.005
  50. Safiih, L. M. ve Azreen, N. M. A. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis approach: A case study of mathematics students’ achievement in TIMSS. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 10(S), 41–51.
  51. Sarkar, S., Chauhan, S. ve Khare, A. (2020). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in mobile commerce. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.008
  52. Shoabjareh, A. H., Ghasri, M., Roberts, T., Lapworth, A., Dobos, N. ve Burken, C. B. (2024). The role of trust and distrust in technology usage: An in-depth investigation of traffic information apps usage for mandatory and non-mandatory trips. Travel Behaviour and Society, 37, Article 100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100816
  53. Silva, J. P. (2023). Privacy data ethics of wearable digital health technology. Center for Digital Health, Brown University. https://cdh.brown.edu/news/2023-05-04/ethics-wearables
  54. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  55. Thomson, E. A., Nuss, K., Comstock, A., Reinwald, S., Blake, S., Pimentel, R. E., Tracy, B. L. ve Li, K. (2019). Heart rate measures from the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR 2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(12), 1411–1419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1560644
  56. Toth, L. P., Park, S., Springer, C. M., Feyerabend, M. D., Steeves, J. A. ve Bassett, D. R. (2018). Video-recorded validation of wearable step counters under free-living conditions. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(6), 1315–1322. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001569
  57. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Müdürlüğü. (2014). Türkiye fiziksel aktivite rehberi. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/saglikli-beslenme-ve-hareketli-hayat-db/Dokumanlar/Rehberler/Turkiye_Fiziksel_Aktivite_Rehberi.pdf
  58. Wang, Y. S. ve Wang, Y. M. (2010). User acceptance of mobile internet: An empirical study. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 8(1), 35–59.
  59. Wiesner, M., Zowalla, R., Suleder, J., Westers, M. ve Pobiruchin, M. (2018). Technology adoption, motivational aspects, and privacy concerns of wearables in the German running community: Field study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(12), Article e201. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9623
  60. Worthington, R. L. ve 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
  61. Wright, R. ve Keith, L. (2014). Wearable technology: If the tech fits, wear it. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(4), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2014.969051
  62. Wulf, A. J. ve Seizov, O. (2020). Artificial intelligence and transparency: A blueprint for improving the regulation of AI applications in the EU. European Business Law Review, 31(4), 611–640. https://doi.org/10.54648/EULR2020024
  63. Xie, H., Prybutok, G., Peng, X. ve Prybutok, V. (2020). Determinants of trust in health information technology: An empirical investigation in the context of an online clinic appointment system. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(12), 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1712061
  64. Xu, H., Teo, H.-H., Tan, B. C. Y. ve Agarwal, R. (2009). The role of push–pull technology in privacy calculus: The case of location-based services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 135–174. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260305
  65. Yang, Q., Mamun, A. A., Hayat, N., Gao, J. ve Hoque, M. E. (2022). Modeling the intention and adoption of wearable fitness devices: A study using SEM-PLS analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 918989. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.918989
  66. Yıldırım, M. ve Karagöz, Y. (2022). Tükenmişlik ve işten ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişkinin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(2), 90–112.