KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Academic Intellectual Capital Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Uğur ÖZALP
Münevver ÇETİN
Sayfa
138–164
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The measurement tool was concluded to have three factors and 20 items, all in affirmative form.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The aim of this study was to develop a scale instrument for measuring academic intellectual capital in the Turkish higher education context depending on student perceptions.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The sample consisted of students of higher education institutions in the 2020-2021 academic year.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The measurement tool was concluded to have three factors and 20 items, all in affirmative form.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2020-2021 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Academic intellectual capital · Intellectual capital · Higher education

Özet

The aim of this study was to develop a scale instrument for measuring academic intellectual capital in the Turkish higher education context depending on student perceptions. The sample consisted of students of higher education institutions in the 2020-2021 academic year. Data were gathered in two stages. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted in the first stage and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in the second stage. The EFA sample consisted of 538 students studying in 96 higher education institutions while the CFA sample consisted of 492 students studying in 112 higher education institutions. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) extraction and Promax rotation methods were used in EFA. Results of EFA showed that the scale had a three-factor structure with 20 items. The three-factor structure was confirmed with CFA. Cronbach’s alpha, stratified alpha, Composite Reliability and McDonald’s omega were calculated in order to determine the reliability of the scores obtained from the scale. Item discrimination was verified by calculating item-total correlation and item-remainder correlation. Also, t-test was carried out between upper and lower 27% to check item discrimination. Analyses were conducted making use of R (ver. 4.1.2) and RStudio (ver. 2021.09.1 build 372). Overall, results showed that the structure of Academic Intellectual Capital Scale was valid. The measurement tool was concluded to have three factors and 20 items, all in affirmative form.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a scale instrument for measuring academic intellectual capital in the Turkish higher education context depending on student perceptions. The sample consisted of students of higher education institutions in the 2020-2021 academic year. Data were gathered in two stages. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted in the first stage and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in the second stage. The EFA sample consisted of 538 students studying in 96 higher education institutions while the CFA sample consisted of 492 students studying in 112 higher education institutions. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) extraction and Promax rotation methods were used in EFA. Results of EFA showed that the scale had a three-factor structure with 20 items. The three-factor structure was confirmed with CFA. Cronbach’s alpha, stratified alpha, Composite Reliability and McDonald’s omega were calculated in order to determine the reliability of the scores obtained from the scale. Item discrimination was verified by calculating item-total correlation and item-remainder correlation. Also, t-test was carried out between upper and lower 27% to check item discrimination. Analyses were conducted making use of R (ver. 4.1.2) and RStudio (ver. 2021.09.1 build 372). Overall, results showed that the structure of Academic Intellectual Capital Scale was valid. The measurement tool was concluded to have three factors and 20 items, all in affirmative form.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZALP, U., ÇETİN, M. (2022). Academic Intellectual Capital Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 138–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/540007

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. Asiaei, K., & Jusoh, R. (2017). Using a robust performance measurement system to illuminate intellectual capital. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 26, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2017.06.003
  2. Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Universiti Teknologi MARA Publication Centre (UPENA). Ayre, C., & Scally, A.J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
  3. Bagheri, A., & Saadati, M. (2021). Generalized structural equations approach in the of elderly self rated health. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1863(1), 1 10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1863/1/012041
  4. Basile, C.G. (2009). Intellectual capital: The tangible assets of professional development schools. State University of New York Press.
  5. Baş, M., Mısırdalı Yangil, F., & Aygün, S. (2014). Entelektüel sermaye alanında yapılan lisansüstü tez çalışmalarına yönelik bir içerik analizi: 2002 – 2012 dönemi [A content analysis on the dissertations on intellectual capital: 2002 – 2021 period]. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 10(23), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2014.10.23.618
  6. Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749810204142
  7. Bontis, N. (2002). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field. In N. Bontis (Ed.), World Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings (pp. 13–56).
  8. Elsevier. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299
  9. Bontis, N., Keow, W.C.C., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930010324188
  10. Bozbura, F.T., & Toraman, A. (2004). Türkiye’de entelektüel sermayenin ölçülmesi ile ilgili model çalışması ve bir uygulama [A model study of measurement intellectual capital in Turkey and an application].