e-ISSN: 2618-6586 Open Access · Peer-Reviewed JETOL on DergiPark
JETOL — Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning
Publisher
Gürhan Durak
Publication Model
Periodical (January – May – September)
Status
Open for Submissions

Adaptation of the Teachers’ Trust in Artificial Intelligence–based Educational Technologies Scale into Turkish: A validity and reliability study

Research Article

Download PDF DOI: 10.31681/jetol.2017119
Published in
Volume 9, Issue 3 (2026)
Pages
582–605
Publication Date
September 30, 2026
Submission Date
August 13, 2026
Acceptance Date
September 29, 2026
Subjects
Instructional Technologies, Educational Technology and Computing

Abstract

This study aims to adapt a scale measuring teachers' trust in AI-based educational technology into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability. Data were collected from 231 teachers across various subject areas, including biology, chemistry, geography, language, mathematics, physics, and science. Following the assessment of univariate and multivariate normality, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and reliability analyses were conducted. Mardia's multivariate kurtosis test indicated a violation of multivariate normality. Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation was retained for the CFA, while bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals and the Bollen–Stine bootstrap procedure were used to evaluate the robustness of parameter estimates and model fit under non-normality. The initial 24-item, eight-factor model was revised based on the CFA findings, resulting in a 21-item, six-factor structure. The revised model was supported by most fit indices (χ² = 340.179, df = 174, χ²/df = 1.955, CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.064), although the TLI value (0.883) was below the conventional .90 threshold. The six subdimensions were Perceived Benefits of AI-based EdTech; Lack of Human Characteristics of AI-based EdTech; Anxieties Related to Using AI-based EdTech; Self-efficacy in Using AI-based EdTech; Preferred Means to Increase Trust in AI-based EdTech; and AI-based EdTech vs Human Advice/Recommendation. Reliability evidence was stronger for four of the six subdimensions, whereas F2 and particularly F3 showed comparatively weaker internal consistency and convergent validity evidence. Overall, the findings provide initial support for the six-factor Turkish adaptation while indicating that the weaker subdimensions and the revised factor structure require further examination in independent samples.

Keywords

  • Trust in AI-based EdTech
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Scale Adaptation
  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis
References (65)
  1. Akkaya, B., Özkan, A., & Özkan, H. (2021). Yapay zekâ kaygı (YZK) ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Artificial intelligence anxiety (AIA) scale: Adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability study]. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(2),1125-1146. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.833668.
  2. Alan, B., Keçeci, G., & Kırbağ Zengin, F. (2025). Öğretmenler için yapay zekâ tutum ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Artificial intelligence attitude scale for teachers: Validity and reliability study]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 63, 120-149. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1418456
  3. Ayanwale, M. A., Adelana, O. P., & Odufuwa, T. T. (2024). Exploring STEAM teachers’ trust in AI-based educational technologies: A structural equation modelling approach. Discover education, 3(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00092-z.
  4. Bach, T. A., Khan, A., Hallock, H., Beltrão, G., & Sousa, S. (2024). A systematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: An HCI perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(5), 1251-1266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2138826.
  5. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
  6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3),588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
  7. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software.
  8. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
  9. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1993). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 111–135). Sage.
  10. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
  12. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421.
  13. Celik, I., Muukkonen, H., & Siklander, S. (2025). Teacher–artificial intelligence (AI) interaction: The role of trust, subjective norm and innovativeness in teachers' acceptance of educational chatbots. Policy Futures in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103251348551.
  14. Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145.
  15. Choung, H., David, P., & Ross, A. (2023). Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(9),1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543.
  16. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  17. Ding, L.-J., Li, J.-M., & Hui, B.-H. (2025). Will Teacher-AI Collaboration Enhance Teaching Engagement? Behavioral Sciences, 15(7), 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15070866.
  18. Farooq, Y. (2025). Exploring teachers' psychological readiness for effective AI integration in the classroom. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(3), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.59075/fbwe9b83.
  19. Feldman-Maggor, Y., Cukurova, M., Kent, C., & Alexandron, G. (2025). The impact of explainable AI on teachers' trust and acceptance of AI EdTech recommendations: The power of domain-specific explanations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00486-6.
  20. Fornell, C., & 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.
  21. Gürbüz, S. (2021). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Structural equation modelling with AMOS]. Seçkin Akademik ve Mesleki Yayınlar.
  22. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
  23. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1),115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
  24. Holmes, W., & Miao, F. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535.
  25. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
  26. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
  27. Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001.
  28. Igbokwe, I. C. (2023). Application of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational management. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 13(3), 300-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.13.03.2023.p13536.
  29. Jian, J. Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04.
  30. Kline, R. B. (1998). Structural equation modeling. Guilford.
  31. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  32. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.
  33. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
  34. Lucas, M., Zhang, Y., Bem-Haja, P., & Vicente, P. N. (2024). The interplay between teachers’ trust in artificial intelligence and digital competence. Education and Information Technologies, 29(17), 22991-23010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12772-2.
  35. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
  36. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519.
  37. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181-220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1.
  38. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
  39. McGrath, M. J., Lack, O., Tisch, J., & Duenser, A. (2025). Measuring trust in artificial intelligence: validation of an established scale and its short form. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1582880.
  40. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2023). Fırsatları Artıran Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ (FEYZA)projesi: Yapay zekâ uygulamaları öğretmen el kitabı [Artificial Intelligence in Education Enhancing Opportunities (FEYZA) Project: Teacher's handbook on artificial intelligence applications]. https://dogmprojeler.meb.gov.tr/upload/feyza/YapayZeka.pdf.
  41. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü (YEĞİTEK) [ Ministry of National Education Innovation and Educational Technologies General Directorate] (2024). Eğitimde kullanılan yapay zekâ araçları: Öğretmen el kitabı [Artificial intelligence tools used in education: Teacher handbook]. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_07/12172521_meb_nek_yapay_zek_araclari_12072024_web.pdf.
  42. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü (YEĞİTEK) [ Ministry of National Education Innovation and Educational Technologies General Directorate] (2025a). Yapay zekâ ve eğitim: Öğretmenler için uygulamalı prompt mühendisliği ve üretken araçlarla yenilikçi öğrenme stratejileri. [Artificial intelligence and education: Applied prompt engineering for teachers and innovative learning strategies with generative tools]. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_07/08125530_yz_ve_egitim_prompt_rhbri_guncell.pdf.
  43. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü (YEĞİTEK) [ Ministry of National Education Innovation and Educational Technologies General Directorate] (2025b). Yapay zekâ etiği tavsiyeleri. [Artificial intelligence ethics recommendations]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_10/25104431_yapay_zeka_etigi_tavsiyeleri_22102025_webformati.pdf.
  44. Morgado, F. F. R., Meireles, J. F. F., Neves, C. M., Amaral, A. C. S., & Ferreira, M. E. C. (2017). Scale development: Ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 30, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1.
  45. Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., Alexandron, G. (2022a). Teachers’ trust in AI-powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 914–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232.
  46. Nazaretsky, T., Cukurova, M., Ariely, M., & Alexandron, G. (2021, September). Confirmation bias and trust: human factors that influence teachers' attitudes towards AI-based educational technology. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 3042). https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/dzqju.
  47. Nazaretsky, T., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022b, March). An instrument for measuring teachers’ trust in AI-based educational technology. In LAK22: 12th international learning analytics and knowledge conference (pp. 56-66). https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506866.
  48. Nazaretsky, T., Mejia-Domenzain, P., Swamy, V., Frej, J., & Käser, T. (2025). The critical role of trust in adopting AI-powered educational technology for learning: An instrument for measuring student perceptions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100368.
  49. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900308.
  50. Omrani, N., Rivieccio, G., Fiore, U., Schiavone, F., & Agreda, S. G. (2022). To trust or not to trust? An assessment of trust in AI-based systems: Concerns, ethics and contexts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 181, 121763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121763.
  51. Perrig, S. A., Scharowski, N., & Brühlmann, F. (2023, April). Trust issues with trust scales: examining the psychometric quality of trust measures in the context of AI. In Extended abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-7). https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585808.
  52. Qin, F., Li, K., & Yan, J. (2020). Understanding user trust in artificial intelligence-based educational systems: Evidence from China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5),1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12994.
  53. Sayılı, E. B. & Akman, Y. (2025). Öğretmenlerin değişime direnç algıları ile yapay zeka kaygıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. [Investigation of the Relationship between Teachers’ Perceptions of the Change Resistance and Artificial Intelligence Anxieties] Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(1), 541-558. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1577046.
  54. Scharowski, N., Perrig, S. A., von Felten, N., Aeschbach, L. F., Opwis, K., Wintersberger, P., & Brühlmann, F. (2025, June). To Trust or Distrust AI: A Questionnaire Validation Study. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 361-374). https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732025.
  55. Seyrek, M., Yıldız, S., Emeksiz, H., Şahin, A., & Türkmen, M. T. (2024). Öğretmenlerin eğitimde yapay zeka kullanımına yönelik algıları. [Teachers' Perceptions on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education] International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 11(106),845–856. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11113077.
  56. Shen, L., Qiu, N., & Wang, Z. (2025). Psychological safety and trust as drivers of teachers’ continued use of AI tools in classrooms. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 31426. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-13789-4.
  57. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.
  58. Taheri, R., Nazemi, N., Pennington, S. E., Clark, J. A., & Dadgostari, F. (2025). Factors influencing educators’ AI adoption: A grounded meta-analysis review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100464.
  59. 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
  60. Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., & Kizilcec, R. (2025). What explains teachers’ trust in AI in education across six countries?. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(3), 1288-1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00433-x.
  61. Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167.
  62. Watson, R., & Thompson, D. R. (2006). Use of factor analysis in Journal of Advanced Nursing: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(3), 330-341.
  63. Wijaya, T., Yu, Q., Cao, Y., He, Y., & Leung, F. (2024). Latent profile analysis of AI literacy and trust in mathematics teachers and their relations with AI dependency and 21st-century skills. Behavioral Sciences, 14(11), 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111008.
  64. Woodruff, K., Hutson, J., & Arnone, K. (2023). Perceptions and barriers to adopting artificial intelligence in K-12 education: A survey of educators in fifty states. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002741.
  65. 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.

This article is published under the CC BY 4.0 license.