Frontiers in psychology · 2026
A multidimensional measure of pre-service teachers' perceived technological competence for teaching: integrating TPACK, DigCompEdu, and self-efficacy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaya Ismet, Meylani Rusen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Technological competence for teaching is multidimensional, encompassing digital tool use, professional digital practice, assessment, pedagogical integration, adaptability, and technology-related self-efficacy. Existing measures often assess these components separately rather than within a unified instrument.
OBJECTIVE: This study developed and validated a multidimensional self-report scale of pre-service teachers' technological competence for teaching by integrating complementary elements of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), and technology-related self-efficacy.
METHODS: A multi-phase scale-development and validation design involved two independent cohorts of pre-service teachers at a public university in Türkiye. The pilot sample (n = 513) was used for item reduction and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), while the main sample (n = 974) was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability and construct-validity analyses, gender measurement-invariance testing, and concurrent associations with a scenario-based technological-pedagogical judgment measure. An initial 90-item pool was reduced to 48 after content review and to 33 following iterative EFA. Principal axis factoring with Promax rotation and diagonally weighted least squares CFA were used.
RESULTS: EFA supported a six-factor, 33-item structure: Foundational Digital Tool Use; Professional Digital Communication and Collaboration; Assessment, Feedback, and Learning Analytics; Pedagogically Aligned Technology Integration; Instructional Technology Troubleshooting and Adaptability; and Teaching-Related Technology Self-Efficacy. The factors explained 62.8% of the variance. CFA showed excellent fit, χ 2(480) = 807.32, CFI = 0.980, TLI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.026, SRMR = 0.036. AVE ranged from 0.520 to 0.613, HTMT from 0.024 to 0.310, and subscale reliability from ω = 0.804 to 0.895. Configural, loading, and threshold invariance were supported across gender. All dimensions correlated positively with scenario-based judgment (rs = 0.218-0.317, ps < 0.001), jointly explaining 35.4% of quiz-score variance.
CONCLUSION: Findings provide initial psychometric support for a six-dimensional self-report measure of technological competence for teaching. The instrument is best interpreted at the subscale level, and its scores represent self-reported technological competence rather than direct observation of teaching performance. It is appropriate for research, formative use, and program evaluation. Further validation across institutions, longitudinal designs, and independent performance-based measures is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: This study developed and validated a multidimensional self-report scale of pre-service teachers' technological competence for teaching by integrating complementary elements of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), and technology-related self-efficacy.
METHODS: A multi-phase scale-development and validation design involved two independent cohorts of pre-service teachers at a public university in Türkiye. The pilot sample (n = 513) was used for item reduction and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), while the main sample (n = 974) was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability and construct-validity analyses, gender measurement-invariance testing, and concurrent associations with a scenario-based technological-pedagogical judgment measure. An initial 90-item pool was reduced to 48 after content review and to 33 following iterative EFA. Principal axis factoring with Promax rotation and diagonally weighted least squares CFA were used.
RESULTS: EFA supported a six-factor, 33-item structure: Foundational Digital Tool Use; Professional Digital Communication and Collaboration; Assessment, Feedback, and Learning Analytics; Pedagogically Aligned Technology Integration; Instructional Technology Troubleshooting and Adaptability; and Teaching-Related Technology Self-Efficacy. The factors explained 62.8% of the variance. CFA showed excellent fit, χ 2(480) = 807.32, CFI = 0.980, TLI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.026, SRMR = 0.036. AVE ranged from 0.520 to 0.613, HTMT from 0.024 to 0.310, and subscale reliability from ω = 0.804 to 0.895. Configural, loading, and threshold invariance were supported across gender. All dimensions correlated positively with scenario-based judgment (rs = 0.218-0.317, ps < 0.001), jointly explaining 35.4% of quiz-score variance.
CONCLUSION: Findings provide initial psychometric support for a six-dimensional self-report measure of technological competence for teaching. The instrument is best interpreted at the subscale level, and its scores represent self-reported technological competence rather than direct observation of teaching performance. It is appropriate for research, formative use, and program evaluation. Further validation across institutions, longitudinal designs, and independent performance-based measures is recommended.