Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

“Why Do I Slog Through the Physics?” Understanding High

School Students’ Difficulties in Learning Physics
Erhan Ekici
Faculty of Education, Pamukkale University,PO box 20055, Denizli, Turkey

Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess why physics courses are perceived as
one of the most difficult courses among high school students and to investigate the reasons why students have
difficulty in learning physics through this scale. This study includes the development and validation studies of
the Difficulty in Learning Physics (DiLP-S) Scale for High School Students. A draft scale study was applied to a
group of 1021 high school students. At the end of the study, a scale consisting of 25 items (α = 0.921) was
developed representing 52.372% of the total variance. Based on exploratory factor analysis, it has been observed
that the scale was grouped under three factors and the factors were respectively, “Teacher” (ten items, α=0.892),
“Content” (ten items, α=0.853) and “Student” (five items, α=0.851). The values obtained from the results of
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Chi-Square = 720.53 (p=0.00), df=272, p-value=0.00000; RMSEA= 0.064 and
CFI = 0.97), put forward a good fit between the hypothesized theoretical model and the empirical data.
According to results, students emphasize mostly the content of the physics course as a reason for perceiving it as
difficult. Then, students, and lastly the teachers follow it. When the scale’s score means are compared according
to the students’ class levels, it was found out that the 9th and the 11th grade students had more difficulty in
learning the physics course than the 10th graders. When the students’ academic success in the physics course and
the scale scores were compared, there was not a significant difference. Namely, whether they are successful or
not, the students perceive the physics course to be difficult.
Keywords: Difficulty, Learning Physics, Student, Teacher, Physics Content

1. Introduction
For more than a decade, in many western countries, the decreasing career interest in science and technology
among young people was recognized and expressed (Department of Education and Science, Ireland, 2002;
OECD, 2006). This appears particularly grave for physics (Institute of Physics, 2001) which has a very
significant role in science and technology. For this reason, some efforts have been launched in some countries to
obviate this situation (Department of Education and Science, Ireland, 2002; Institute of Physics, 1999; Main,
2011) and there have been various extensive attempts to teach physics in a better and more efficient manner and
to make physics more attractive. Students’ perceptions of the context of any courses influence their learning.
Course context is perceived differently (for example in Chemistry) by students and teachers because their
experiences, knowledge, goals, needs, and motivations are different (Carter and Brickhouse, 1989). Therefore,
in some studies, findings of some questions were investigated and argued such as “What makes physics
difficult?”, “Which topics the students find difficult?”, “How do students perceive the difficulty of physics?” or
“Why are the students not interested in physics?” (Erinosha, 2013; Örnek, Robinson & Haugan, 2007; Şahin &
Yağbasan, 2012; Williams, Stanisstreet, Spall, Boyes & Dickson, 2003).
Our main concern is to determine the core reason that causes the feeling that “physics is a difficult
course” or “it is something that the learners are reluctant to learn and attend”. Those who have been teaching
physics have some specific experiences: A student can solve problems but cannot present a general view or a
coherent opinion about them. The majority of students who have difficulties memorize even in the specifically
designed ideal courses without comprehending (Redish, 1994).
Primarily, the identification of the perceptions of learners about the physics course is thought to be
important to overcome the problem in teaching physics. For this aim, we investigated students’ difficulties in
learning physics and students were asked to write a composition related to question of “Why physics course is
difficult?”.

2. Theoretical Background
Physics is generally recognized as being conceptually difficult as a subject both to learn and to teach (Angell,
Guttersrud, Henriksen & Isnes, 2004; Mualem & Eylon, 2007; Mulhall & Gunstone, 2008). In a study which
investigated the views of high school students and teachers about physics, it was found that students find physics
“difficult” but “interesting” (Angell et al., 2004). In the same study, teachers stated that competency in
mathematics is essential for understanding the concepts of physics, and the students have lower mathematical
competency. Unlike teachers, students do not consider this fact (mathematical competency) crucial.
Predominant among secondary school students’ negative views about physics are the notions that it is ‘difficult’,
‘irrelevant’ and ‘boring’ (Williams, Stanisstreet, Spall, & Boyes, 2003). Researchers have explained the cause of

95
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

being viewed as difficult in their studies (Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet, & Boyes, 2008). According to them,
physics becomes increasingly difficult due to the changing nature of physics over the secondary school period. In
addition, over this period physics becomes less descriptive and more mathematical (Owen et al. 2008).
Redish (1994) asserts that faculty members, teaching assistants (TAs) and students may have different
views about learning and understanding of physics. According to him, faculty members and TAs should know
and understand the views of students about physics courses, because they are teachers of students. Individuals
who are learning and those who are teaching will live in different worlds, and it will be difficult to communicate,
because they speak different languages (Carter, & Brickhouse, 1989). This study explained that an awareness
about these difficulties may influence the curriculum choice and perceptions of difficulty are central to the
classroom (Carter, & Brickhouse, 1989).
A more experienced teacher should get to know his/her students to be successful during teaching.
Moreover, Redish stated that faculty members and TAs should be aware of how their views are different from
students’ views. In this way, they can understand why students have difficulties in physics (Redish, 1994).
For the past 20 years, researchers have carried out numerous studies on how children and adults learn
physics, with much of the activity occurring in Europe, America, and Israel (McDermott, & Redish, 1999).
Interests, goals, and motivation have been identified as the most important factors in learning and academic
success (see Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Nolen, 2003). In these studies, researchers found some correlations
between learning environment, motivation, learning strategies, and achievement among high school pupils (Hidi
& Harackiewicz, 2000; Nolen, 2003).
According to the results of studies done by these researchers, teachers think that students hold the
preconception that physics concepts are difficult (Oon & Subramaniam, 2011). It has been asserted by the
researchers that students consider the concepts in physics too abstract to understand. Moreover, teachers also
believe that students must have a high level of competency in mathematics to understand physics concepts better
(Oon & Subramaniam, 2011). In another study, teachers have emphasized that students need to possess
mathematics competency to understand physics better (Angell et al., 2004). Similar views have been put forward
by the other studies (Gill, 1999; Politis, Killeavy & Mitchell, 2007).
In another study aiming to determine the obstacles faced by teachers in teaching physics, it was stated
that students have negative feelings and prejudices about physics courses and the difficulty of using
mathematical formulae (Aycan & Yumuşak, 2002; Karakuyu, 2008). When researchers asked physics teachers
and high school graduates what they considered to be the most difficult and easiest physics topics, they found
that according to the participants, the most difficult subject is “electromagnetic induction” and the easiest one is
“substance and its features”. In the study, some reasons why students have difficulty understanding physics
subjects have also been determined (Aycan & Yumuşak, 2002; Karakuyu, 2008). These were “students lacking
background about the physics subjects (prior to high school)”, “students were not familiar with the subject from
daily life” and “students couldn’t embody abstract concepts”. In another study (Şahin, & Yağbasan, 2012), pre-
service physics teachers who have completed their introductory physics courses were asked to indicate the most
difficult physics subjects. In this study, researchers also tried to find out the reasons why respondents felt those
subjects were difficult. When researchers coded the answers from the open-ended questions, 24 reasons emerged
under four domains. The first one was the “Content of the subject” (such as too many formulae and complex,
abstract, need rote learning, etc.), “Student Profile” (having prejudice, lacking background, having wrong
knowledge, etc.), “Application of the Subject” (having difficulties in visualizing, relating to daily life, etc.),
“Teaching the Subject” (lack of time, superficiality, teaching as complex-abstract-rote, etc.) (Şahin, & Yağbasan,
2012).

2.1 The Aim of This Study

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to understand why physics is perceived as
difficult among high school students and to investigate the reasons why students have difficulty in learning
physics through the scale. It has been emphasized that physics is recognized as being conceptually difficult as a
subject both to learn and to teach (Angell et al., 2004; Mualem & Eylon, 2007; Mulhall & Gunstone, 2008).
According to some researchers, this difficulty is derived from the fact that its content, over the period of
secondary education, becomes less descriptive and more mathematical (Redish, 1994; Owen et al., 2008).
Teachers are another reason for students’ difficulties in learning physics because of their active role in
the learning and teaching process. Carter and Brickhouse (1989) stated that students and teachers live in different
worlds and they have different languages. This dissimilarity is causing a lack of student-teacher communication.
If the teachers don’t understand their students, they can’t discover their students’ needs and they can’t organize
their instruction effectively for their students.
Consequently, it is worthwhile to develop an instrument addressing why the physics courses are
perceived as difficult among undergraduate teacher candidates. The instrument could help physics teachers to
understand the reasons. Thus, they could take precautions for their instruction and teaching tools and methods. If

96
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

the reasons why physics is perceived as difficult by students are determined, taking precautions against these
reasons will be possible.
In literature, there are several studies concerning how physics content is taught in a better and more
efficient way. In this study, we aimed to develop a measurement tool intending to reveal why students find
physics difficult and to investigate the reasons why students have difficulty in learning physics through the scale.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research Model
The survey model was adopted in this research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Survey model is a research approach
aims to describe an existing case (Karasar, 1984). Survey model serves to two purposes (Yıldırım, 1966). These
are a) to be acquainted with existing case, b) to gather information and to summarize them for the aim of solving
or explaining the problem.

3.2 Participants
313 students who are studying in five high schools at the center of Denizli were included in this study.
Approximately 80% of students are 9th and 10th grade students. Nearly half of the participating students stated
that their physics course grade average are between 65 and 80. Mother of 20% of students are university
graduates and 34% are high school graduates while father of 33% are university graduate and 25% are high
school graduate. 82% of students stated that they have a computer with internet access while half of them stated
that they have the regular reading habit. The following table (Table 1) summarizes the characteristics of the
participating students.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants
Category n % Category n %
9. Grade 179 57,2 11. Grade 61 19,5
Grade Level
10. Grade 73 23,3 Total 313 100
Poor (<50) 14 4,5 Good (65-80) 138 44,1
Achievement
Middle (50-65) 80 25,6 Better (>80) 81 25,9
Illiterate 2 0,6 High School 105 33,5
Literate 46 14,7 Associate Degree 8 2,6
Mother Education
Primary School 2 0,6 University 62 19,8
Level
Middle School 72 23 M.S. or Doctorate 4 1,3
Not Known 12 3,8
Illiterate 2 0,6 High School 77 24,6
Literate 9 2,9 Associate Degree 21 6,7
Father
Primary School 37 11,8 University 103 32,9
Educational Level
Middle School 40 12,8 M.S. or Doctorate 12 3,8
Not Known 12 3,8
n % n % n %
Computer Ownership Yes 257 82,1 No 44 14,1 Not Known 12 3,8
Book Reading Habit Yes 158 50,5 No 143 45,7 Not Known 12 3,8

3.3. Data Collection Tool

Difficulty in Learning Physics Scale for Students (DiLP-S) has been developed by the researchers. The scale
comprises of 25 items under three sub-dimension (Teacher “10 items”, content “10 items”, student “5 items”).
Data were collected from 1021 high school students for the validity and reliability study and data of the 708
participants who either gave incomplete answers or made an impression of not filling the form by reading
carefully were excluded from the analysis. According to the data obtained from the 313 participants, the internal
consistency coefficient scale’s Cronbach alpha α was calculated for all of dimensions as 0,921, for 1st dimension
(teachers) as 0,892, for 2nd dimension (content) as 0,853 and for 3rd dimension (student) as 0,851. The model
complies well with the data according to the confirmatory factor analysis results in the phase of scale
development.

3.4. Development of the DiLP-S Scale

We followed all steps necessary for the development of a measurement scale in the study. Although different
sources claim that the number of these steps varies with respect to the details of the actions to be taken, the
process of developing this scale included five main phases (Hinkin, 1995). These steps was explained as below:
3.4.1. Item Pool Phase (Development of Draft Form)
Studies of the scale development are generally carried out through following experimental and institutional
processes. In the experimental process, with the help of the literature and expert opinion approaches, a

97
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

prospective scale form is developed. Therefore, the final form which consists of ideal items is created through
determining the psychometric characteristics of scale items by applying an experimental application to a sample
group which has several characteristics in common with the target group (Yurdagül, 2005).
In this phase, initially the relevant literature (Aycan & Yumuşak, 2002; Grassmann, 2008; Ertaş et al.,
2009; Süzük, Çorlu & Gürel, 2011) was reviewed by researcher and item proposals were constituted from this
related research reports. Additionally, for the aim to constitute more item for the item pool, students were asked
to write a compositions about why they have difficulties in physics courses. This compositions was coded by 5
researchers who are experts in science and physics education. As a result, an item pool with 59 items was
developed through coding and reviewing the literature. From this pool, a draft form with 44 items thought to be
in accordance with the nature of the study was converted into a scale by the researcher.
The sampling approach with the rating totals developed by Likert (1932) is selected as the baseline. In
this approach, numerous positive or negative statements are applied to the numerous responders with regard to
subject attitude. Responders choose one of the options for each statement: “Totally agree”, “Agree”, “Not sure”,
“Disagree”, or “Totally Disagree”. In this way, every participant states the degree of “agree/disagree” against the
component of attitude covered by each statement in the scale. In the study, the rating method developed by
Likert (1932) is used with the scoring from 5 to 1.
3.4.2. Expert View Phase
a) Language validity: The draft scale developed was analyzed by Turkish language experts (n=5) for language
validity in terms of sentence structure and meaning. Following the language validity study, four statements were
excluded from the draft scale as suggested by the experts.
b) Content validity: There is a considerable agreement on how to compute the Item-level Content Validity Index
(I-CVI). A panel of content experts (Büyüköztürk, 2010) is asked to rate each scale item in terms of its relevance
to the underlying construct (Polit & Beck, 2006). It is advised that a minimum of three experts are enough, but
indicated that more than 10 was probably unnecessary (Lynn, 1986).
In the literature, in order to obtain the rating of experts, a 4-point ordinal scale is also advised by the
writers (such as Lynn, 1986; Waltz and Bausell, 1981) to avoid having a neutral and ambivalent midpoint (Polit
and Beck, 2006).
Several different labels for the four points along the item-rating continuum have appeared in the
literature, but the one that was advocated by Davis (1992) appears to be in frequent use: 1=not relevant,
2=somewhat relevant, 3=quite relevant, 4=highly relevant. Then, the I-CVI is calculated for each item, and this
calculation was found as a result of dividing the number of the opinions of experts who rates either 3 or 4 into
the number of total experts who took part in the study.
The draft scale was analyzed by two experienced physics teachers from two high schools and four
academic teaching staff members who give basic physics lectures at the university level in three education
faculties in Turkey. Scale items were assessed one by one and re-arranged based on the expert opinions. For
showing the content validity of the study in numeric values, Davis technique as a scale rating criterion was
applied in order to prove the scope validity of the study in numeric values. In this step, 6 items have been
withdrawn from draft form of the scale.
3.4.3. Pilot Experiment Phase (Implementation and Data Analysis)
The final form of the developed scale was applied to the 1021 high school students from five schools in Denizli.
After the application, item analysis was carried out to evaluate the scale in terms of internal consistency, stability
and the power of stimulating the reactions which are aimed to be observed without stimulating the ones which
are not aimed to be observed (Tezbaşaran, 2008). For assessing the reliability of the scale, item total correlations,
item distinctiveness with the method of comparing the groups of upper and lower 27% of the item total grades
and Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficients were examined (Tezbaşaran, 2008). Cronbach’s Alpha
value (α) is a scale of internal consistency among the test grades of the scale and the values above 0.70 are
considered sufficient for the test consistency (Büyüköztürk, 2010).
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were applied to ensure structure validity of the scale.
While trying to reach the factor structures with reference to the relationship between the variables through
exploratory factor analysis, a hypothesis or a theory which had already been determined beforehand was tested
through confirmatory factor analysis (Büyüköztürk, 2010).
a) Sample Characteristics for Pilot Application
Draft scale with 34 items was applied to 1021 high school students who were enrolled five different schools in
Denizli. Before the application, a control item was added to draft scale to check whether scale items were read
carefully or not. The item was requested to mark the “totally agree” choice. Due to this control item, data of 399
participants has been used for validation study. Characteristics of these 399 students was summarized in table 2.
Half of the participants were male students and about 75% of students from 9th and 10th grade of high school.
Mean of age for students was 15.76 and majority of the students physics achievement were middle and good
according to their statements.

98
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

Table 2. Distribution of the Participants for Pilot Application

Category n % Category n %
Gender Male 196 49.1 Female 203 50.9
9. Grade 179 44.9 11. Grade 77 19.3
Class Level
10. Grade 125 31.3 12. Grade 18 4.5
14 14 3.5 17 85 21.3
Age 15 157 39.3 18 2 0.5
16 141 35.3
Bad 12 3.0 Good 192 48.1
Physics Course Achievement
Middle 89 22.3 Better 106 26.6
Total 399 100
b) Item Analysis
Scale items of a measurement instrument were analyzed in terms of relevancy to the case subject to assess the
characteristics of being able to distinguish the degree of the case from each other. The ones whose relation to the
case are strong or the distinctive ones could be selected for the scale (Tezbaşaran, 2008). Two different “item
analysis” were suggested specifically by Likert (1932) in order to determine every item’s strength of scaling.
These are item-total correlations and the methods of t-test analysis related to the distinctiveness in terms of the
groups of top-bottom 27%. At this state, one item (fourth item) has not been included to the calculation because
it was a control item.
In this study, item-total correlations are firstly examined during the item analysis. Generally, it can be
said that the items whose item total correlations are 0.30 and above can differentiate the individuals better, the
items which are between 0.20 – 0.30 can be included into the test in the case of they are considered as necessary,
the items below 0.20 should be excluded from the test (Büyüköztürk, 2010). In the analysis, item total
correlations of 4 items have values below 0.20 (3, 6, 29 and 34). Therefore, it has been decided that these items
should be excluded from the scale. In the scale, there are not any items in the range between 0.20 and 0.30,
which could be called “uncertain”. Consequently, 3 items were excluded from the scale and item-total
correlations for the remaining 30 items were re-calculated.
Table 3. Item-total correlation coefficients and t values for the rest of the items
No r** t No r** t No r** t
S1 0,61 14,862* S14 0,58 16,066* S24 0,52 11,147*
S2 0,44 10,829* S15 0,48 10,949* S25 0,56 12,688*
S5 0,58 13,396* S16 0,59 13,755* S26 0,45 9,628*
S7 0,63 16,721* S17 0,59 14,184* S27 0,41 10,275*
S8 0,66 15,961* S18 0,62 15,335* S28 0,54 12,983*
S9 0,48 10,144* S19 0,36 7,118* S30 0,53 11,950*
S10 0,60 15,056* S20 0,56 12,974* S31 0,59 13,791*
S11 0,59 12,120* S21 0,39 6,426* S32 0,59 13,736*
S12 0,45 9,398* S22 0,49 10,061* S33 0,57 14,019*
S13 0,49 11,840* S23 0,55 12,303* S35 0,51 12,777*
* p< .05, two-tiled
**Item-Total correlation coefficients
Note: t-Test values regarding item distinctiveness according to the difference between the groups of bottom-top
27%
According to re-calculation results, It has been determined that the item total correlations of the rest of
the items vary between 0.36 and 0.66. T values regarding to item distinctiveness according to the difference
between the groups of the bottom and top 27% were significant at p< .05 level.
3.4.4. Factor Analysis Phase
Before the factor analysis, normality of data was investigated. A Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p> .05) (Öztuna, Elhan,
Tüccar, 2006; Shapiro & Wilk, 1965; Razali & Wah, 2011) and a visual examination of the histograms, normal
Q-Q plots and box plots showed that the instrument scores were approximately normally distributed, with a
skewness of -0.195 (SE=0.122) and a kurtosis of 0.229 (SE=0.244) (Cramer, 1998; Cramer & Howitt, 2004;
Doane & Seward, 2011). Exploratory Factor Analysis was executed on the data acquired to determine the
structure validity of the draft scale consisting of 30 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis is a technique used to
group the items that measure the same structure or attribute among the items determined by the researchers and
to clarify the scale through those limited number of substructures (the factors) (Büyüköztürk, 2010). Before this
analysis,
Several criteria have been offered by researchers for the competent sample size for factor analysis
(Kline, 2005; Bryman & Cramer, 2001). In terms of sample size, another criterion to investigate the competency

99
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

of a data set for the factor analysis is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2005). As
shown in Table 4, the KMO was calculated as 0.927 which demonstrates that the size of the sample is perfect.
When we examined the result of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (chi-square = 5544.36; df = 435; p<.000), we
observed that the data were appropriate for the factor analysis.
Table 4. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.927
Approx. Chi-Square 5544.36
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 435
Sig. 0.000
After the scale’s appropriateness for factor analysis was determined considering the results of KMO and
Bartlett’s tests, we applied principal component analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the
number of factors by using variations that were exposed to factor analysis.
The number of factors was determined by the total variance percentage which was explained by each
factor. In this analysis, factors whose variances were below 1 were not taken into consideration because variable
variances were equal to 1. The number of factors which are included in the model is equal to the number of
factors whose Eigenvalues are over 1 (Morrison, 1990).
The first principal component analysis (PCA) determined five factors whose Eigenvalues were 1 or
above. These factors explained 56.918% of total variance.
Scree Plot
12

10

4
Eigenvalue

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Component Number
Figure 1. Scree Plot-Eigenvalue Diagram of First Principle Component Analysis
When PCA results were investigated, after the third components, contributions to the cumulative
variance are both slight and close to each other. Furthermore, according to the Scree Plot-Eigenvalue diagram
(see Figure 1), three factors were decided and the principle component analysis was repeated.
According to results of second PCA, three factors explained 49.126% of total variance (Table 5).
However, all of these steps were repeated until the requirements of the principal component analysis and
varimax rotation explained above were met. More than one item was excluded from the scale after each analysis
because they were loaded under more than one factor (overlapped).
Table 5. Principle Component Analysis
DiLP Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Eigenvalue 9.967 2.992 1.779
Explained Variance % 33.223 9.974 5.928
Cumulative Variance % 33.223 43.198 49.126
At the end of the last analysis, there were not any items left to be excluded. Among the three factors
determined, there were 25 items, which meant that five items were excluded from the 30-item scale. The three
factors were determined as a result of the last analysis explaining 52.372% of the total variance. While the first
component had an eigenvalue of 8.763 and explained 35.051% of total variance, the second component had an
eigenvalue of 2.690 and explained 10.758% of the total variance and the third and the last component of the
scale had an eigenvalue of 1.641 and explained 6.563% of the total variance.
To determine which item will be found in a factor, with regard to the factor loading of the items, the
varimax rotation method was applied. The varimax rotation method helps to determine the limited number of
factors with higher loadings and the abundant number of factors with zero (or lower) loadings (Ferguson & Cox,
1993). It determines the items that constitute a factor. Therefore, the items that form a factor are examined, and
this factor is named (see Appendices).
3.4.5. Reliability Calculation Phase
To calculate the reliability of the scale, Cronbach’s Alpha value was used. With this calculation, α values for the
three factors in the scale were found between .852 and .892. For the whole scale, the alpha value was calculated
as .921. α value for the evaluation of the reliability of a scale is suggested to be 0.70 or above (Hair, Anderson,

100
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

Tatham, & Black, 1995). The reliability values for each factor on the scale can be seen in Appendix.
a) Correlations among the Factors
Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the relation among the dimensions of the scale which consists
of one-dimension and three sub-dimensions (Table 6). According to the analysis results, all the dimensions of the
scale have significant levels of relations among each other.
Table 6. The relation among the dimensions of the scale (Pearson Correlation Analysis)
Relations r
1. Teacher*Content 0.541(**)
2. Teacher*Student 0.409(**)
3. Content*Student 0.617(**)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Following the evaluation of the data with regard to why physics courses are difficult; it is observed that
there is a low positive significant relation between teacher and student dimensions (r=0.409(**); p≤0.001), there
is moderate positive relation between teacher and content dimensions (r=0.541(**); p≤0.001) and between
student and content dimension (r=0.617(**); p≤0.001).
This relation indicates that the teacher factor has a low but effective impact on the students’ perception
of physics as a difficult course. Furthermore, the moderate relation between the dimension of content and the
student indicates that content factor has an effective impact on students’ perception of physics as difficult course.
There is also moderate positive and statistically significant relation between the teacher and content factors.
b) Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results of the Scale
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical technique used to verify the factor structure of a set
of observed variables. While the main purpose in exploratory factor analysis is to find out the model appropriate
for the structure of the data, the main purpose of the confirmatory factor analysis is to clarify the meaningfulness
of the relation between the structure and the observed variables (Baydur & Eser, 2012).
The factors prepared following exploratory factor analysis which described how the structure
represented are put forward by the confirmatory factor analysis. LISREL software was used during the
confirmatory factor analysis. According to McDonald and Ho (2002), three measures of fit indices were used to
evaluate the fit between the hypothesized theoretical model and the empirical data: the relative (normed) chi-
square (X2/df), the CFI (Comparative Fit Index), and the RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation).
There is no clear-cut guideline about what value of the relative chi-square is minimally acceptable. For
example, Bollen (1989) notes that values of the relative chi-square of 2.0, 3.0 or even as high as 5.0 have been
recommended and indicated as reasonably fit. It has also been suggested that with some consensus in the
psychometric literature, a model tends to be reasonably fit if the statistic adjusted by its degrees of freedom does
not exceed 3.0 (Kline, 2005).
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), also known as the Bentler Comparative Fit Index, compares the fit of a
target model to the fit of an independent model in which the variables are assumed to be uncorrelated. In this
context, fit refers to the difference between the observed and predicted covariance matrices, as represented by
the chi-square index. Values that approach 1 indicate acceptable fit (Moss, 2014). In other studies, CFI values
were recommended to be higher than 0.90 (Yu-Ling, 2012) or close to 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
The RMSEA is currently the most popular measure of model fit and it is now reported in virtually all
papers that use CFA or SEM and some preferably refer to the measure as the “Ramsey” (Kenny, 2014). In a
study, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.08 values were advised to indicate excellent, good, and medium fit, respectively
(MacCallum, Browne & Sugawara, 1996). In our study, according to results of the confirmatory factor analysis,
these values were calculated as (272) = 720.53 (p= .00); the relative chi-square ( X2/df) = 2.649; the CFI = 0.97;
the RMSEA = 0.064. According to suggestions done by researchers (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Byrne, 2001; Luis
Vieira, 2011; Yu-Ling, 2012; Bollen, 1989; Moss, 2014; Kline, 2005; Kenny, 2014; MacCallum et al., 1996),
these results indicated that the model provided a good fit to the presented data (Table 7).
Table 7. Ideal and measured fit indices
Measures for fit indices Ideal fit indices Results for this model
Relative X2 X2/df <3 2.649
CFI CFI>0.90 0.97
RMSEA RMSAE<0.080 0.064
c) The Use of This Instrument and Interpretation of Its Results
The students were asked to evaluate not only the physics course they had been attending but also physics courses
in general. In addition, the data gathered can be used as a tool to evaluate the physics courses in which they have
been enrolled. If the scale is aimed as part of a data collection tool for a specific physics course, the students
should be informed about it. The data gathered from the scale can be used for physics courses in general. In both
cases, the data gathered can be interpreted by the teachers, administers and other educational policy makers and
executives.

101
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

This scale is a measurement tool that instructors may apply to their students at the beginning of a
physics course or at any time they need. The scale aims to give information to the teachers or lecturers about
students in the process of physics instruction.
A directive instruction could be added for participants to the scale. It contains 25 items which are
grouped under three sub-dimensions. Each item has five options: “Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Uncertain”,
“Agree”, and “Strongly Agree”. Respondents are requested to mark the most appropriate option which represents
their opinion.
Respondents can give scores ranging between 1 and 5 from each item. Through collecting these scores,
the level of difficulty in learning physics is determined. Different scores are calculated for the whole scale and
each sub-dimensions. The lowest score that can be taken from the whole scale is 25, the highest score is 125. The
participants can give 10 at the minimum level and 50 at the maximum level from the “teacher” and “content”
sub-dimensions. For the other sub-dimension (student), scores can be between 5 and 25.
In the interpretation of the results, the scores taken from the whole scale and sub-dimensions are used.
A total score which is close to 125 indicates that the students are having a high level of difficulty in learning
physics. Conversely, a total score which is close to 25 indicates that students are having little difficulty in
learning physics.
To interpret the scores of the sub-dimensions, we offer that high scores from each dimension indicate
the factors for having difficulty in learning physics.
For example, a high score from the “teacher” sub-dimension (close to 50) indicates that the teacher is
the perceived reason for difficulty in learning physics. In this situation, the instructor should examine the mean
scores of the items of this dimension. For example, if the educators obtain a high mean score for the item “The
teacher does not employ visual materials during the course”, they will realize that the students need more visual
materials for understanding physics concepts. After this detailed examination, the instructor may understand the
shortcomings of their teaching in the eyes of the students.
If the participants have a high score from “student” dimension (close to 25), the items under this
dimension should be examined and necessary precautions may be taken. If the participant has a high score from
the “content” dimension (close to 50), the content of the course may be re-designed by the teachers or/and other
educators according to the interests and needs of the students.
d) Analysis of the Data
Statements of scale should be completed by selecting one of five ranges from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly
Disagree”. “Strongly Agree” statement was evaluated as five point and “Strongly Disagree” was evaluated as
one point. In this step, descriptive statistics, t-test and variance analysis were utilized (Büyüköztürk et al., 2013).

4. Findings
When the mean scores for sub dimensions were compared, as it was summarized in figure 3, it is seen that the
students mostly emphasized the course content as the reason of having difficulty in learning physics. The student
and the teacher factors follows this respectively. According to this result, mean scores of the content factor were
investigated. The mean scores and the standard deviations of these items were given in the Appendix.

Figure 2. Total mean scores for sub-dimensions

102
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

Table 8. Mean scores and Standard Deviations for Items of Content Factor
Item No Content Factor Mean SD
C1 There are too many subjects and concepts in physics course. 3,79* 1,069
C2 Physics subjects have too many formulas. 3,43 1,142
C3 Physics subjects have complicated formulas. 3,60 1,156
C4 Physics courses have formulas based on memorization. 3,59 1,152
C5 I am lacking background knowledge about physics. 3,29 1,147
C6 Physics is considered as a difficult subject in my environment. 3,84* 1,050
C7 Physics is a memorization-based course. 2,80 1,221
C8 I cannot allocate time for physics course 2,87 1,068
C9 Physics course books are boring for me. 3,63* 1,250
C10 Most of the subjects in physics course are abstract concepts 3,02 1,210
* Three highest mean scores
There are 10 items in the scale related to course content. Among the items under this factor, “Physics is
considered as a difficult subject in my environment” has the highest mean (M=3.84, sd=1.05) and respectively
the item of “There are too many subjects and concepts in physics course” (M=3.79, sd=1.07) and the item of
“Physics course books are boring for me” (M=3.63, sd=1.25).
According to these results, it can be said that the students have a prejudice towards the physics course
that originates from their environment (friends, parents, etc.) and they perceive this prejudice as a reason for
having difficulty in the course. Moreover, the students think that the physics course has too many subjects and
concepts. The students see the course content’s intensity as a reason for having difficulty in learning physics.
Another important emphasis is students’ seeing the course books as boring, and it can be said that this also
causes them to have difficulty in learning the physics course.
Besides the demographic information in the scale, the students were asked to indicate their grade point
averages as “Poor (Below 50)”, “Middle (between 50 and 65)”, “Good (between 66 and 80)” and “Better (81 and
above)”. This information was used in comparison the mean scores by student success.

Figure 4. Comparison of the Mean Scores According to Students’ Physics Course Achievement
According the results in figure 4, the students mostly emphasized the course content as the reason for
having difficulty in learning physics. When the factor scores were compared by the success of students, all
students put forward the course content as the reason of having difficulty in learning physics. This results got
along well with the results in figure 3.
The mean scores of DiLP Scale were compared by the grade levels of the students. It was found out that
9th grade (X=75.48) and 11th grade (X=71.25) students have more difficulty when compared with the 10th
grade students (X=62.64) (Table 9).
Table 9. Mean scores by grade levels

Grade Levels N SD

9 179 75,48 19,227

10 73 62,64 13,544
11 61 71,25 13,366

103
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

When it was examined whether this difference appeared by sub-dimensions of the scale, in teacher sub-
dimension, 9th (X=25.59) and 11th (X=23.77) grade level students emphasizes teachers as the reason of having
difficulties in learning physics more than 10th (X=18.90) grade students. Similarly, in content sub-dimension,
9th (X=34.68) grade level students emphasizes curse content as the reason of having difficulties in learning
physics more than 10th (X=32.03) grade students. In student sub-dimensions, 9th grade (X=15.21) and 11th
grade (X=13.89) students consider themselves as the reason of having difficulty in learning physics more than
10th grade (X=11.71) students.

5. Conclusion and Discussion

According to results, students in the sample group put the course and the syllabus content forward as a reason for
having difficulty in learning the physics course. The student and the teacher factors follow this (See Figure 3.).
There is a common belief that the reason for the students’ being successful (or unsuccessful) is only the teacher.
Carter and Brickhouse (1989) even claim that the students and the teachers have different views of the world and
so interact differently. This difference causes a communication gap and therefore they have difficulties in
learning the physics course. However, according to the results of this study, contrary to this common belief,
students exhibited the minimal effect of teachers on student difficulties in learning physics. According to the
results summarized in figure 4, these mean scores do not differ according to the students’ success in the physics
course. Namely, no matter how much the student is successful in the physics course, s/he shows first the course
content, then themselves, and lastly the teachers as a reason for having difficulty.
The content of the physics course comprises of the concepts related to the real lives the students live.
However, the students see the content of the course as an important factor to think that the physics course is
difficult. The students think that the physics course has more subjects and concepts than necessary and that the
course is boring. In addition, the students have the prejudice that the course is a difficult one, and they get this
feeling because of their environment. According to these findings, it can be thought that the content of the
physics course and the books is not prepared accordingly with the students’ real life.
According to this result, the 9th and the 11th grade students emphasize that the physics course is
difficult more than the 10th class students. The students face the topics of the physics under the name ‘physics’
for the first time when they start high school. Before high school, the students learn these topics in the science
classes together with the other fields of science. Nevertheless, Akdeniz et al. (2000) highlight that about 70% of
the 8th grade students have difficulty in understanding the basic physics concepts. The researchers put forward
the reasons behind this as the students’ not being able to connect the subjects and the concepts of physics,
chemistry and biology, and the insufficient mathematics knowledge. Therefore, the 9th grade students may not
be facing these topics for the first time but they are facing them under a different title for the first time, and this
might be the reason of this difference. The physics course teaching program that covers the 9th and the 10th
grades consists of the basic concepts in the science of physics. However, at the 11th and the 12th grades, these
same concepts are taught in a more detailed way (MEB, 2013). The reason why the 11th graders find physics
course more difficult than the 10th graders is thought to be the structure of the teaching program. The reasons for
students to think physics is difficult are more likely to be the course content, and the physics’ naturally including
mathematical calculations and formulas.
Sub-dimensions of the scale are important for giving us an idea about the underlying reasons of why the
students have difficulty in understanding physics topics. According to the higher scores in the teacher sub-
dimension, students consider their teachers as the reason for them to have difficulty in understanding physics.
Accordingly, 9th and 11th grade students emphasize the teacher factor more than 10th grade students. According
to a study conducted with the 9th grade students (n=303) by Alptekin and colleagues (2009), the students
thought that the teacher plays a crucial role for them to understand and like studying physics. Aycan and
Yumuşak (2003) argued in a study that one of the possible causes of having difficulties in understanding physics
for the students is non-experimental and theoretical treatment of the subject. According to this statement, the
teachers take on a significant task to manage the process of teaching the lesson well.
In terms of the student sub-dimension of the scale, the mean scores difference between 11th and 10th
grade students and 11th and 10th grade students were statistically significant. This means that the 9th and 11th
grade students consider themselves as the reason for having difficulty in understanding physics more than the
10th grade students.
By asking the students about their previous term physics course grade point averages, some information
was gathered about their success in this course. When the students’ physics difficulty scale means are analyzed
according to their success levels, there was not a significant difference neither in the overall of the scale nor in
the sub dimensions of it. According to this result, even if the students are successful in the physic course, even if
they have a high grade point averages or not, they think that the physics course is difficult.
Difficulty in Learning Physics Scale allows us to obtain information about the conditions and sources of
difficulties students have in learning physics. The resulting information is expected to lead the teachers,

104
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

researchers and administrators about measures to be taken in order to increase the success of students in physics
course. It is thought that the scale has a great importance to reflect the difficulties in understanding and learning
of the physics from the viewpoint of the students. Therefore, it is also expected to make a contribution to the
researches to be made on this subject.

References
Akdeniz, A.R., Bektaş, U. & Yiğit, N. (2000). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin temel fizik kavramlarını anlama
düzeyi, [Understanding Levels of Basic Physics Concepts in 8th Grade Students], Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 19, s:5-14
Alptekin, S., Demirbaş, M. & Arıkan., N. (2009). 9. Sınıf öğrencilerinin fizik dersine ilişkin görüşlerinin
incelenmesi [Examination of views related physics course of 9th grade students], Sakarya Üniverstesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [The Journal of SAU Education Faculty], 18, 1-10
Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K. & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun, Pupils’ and teachers’
views of physics and physics teaching (Electronic version). Science Education, 88, 683-706.
Aycan, Ş. & Yumuşak, A. (2002). Lise fizik müfredatındaki konuların analaşılma düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma
[A study on the levels of understanding of high school physics curriculum subjects], VII. Ulusal Fen
Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi [VII National Science and Mathematics Education Congress],
16-18 Eylül, Ankara
Aycan, Ş. & Yumuşak, A. (2003). Lise fizik müfredatındaki konuların anlaşılma düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma
[A study on the levels of understanding of high school physics curriculum subjects], National
Education Journal, 159, 171-180.
Baydur H. & Eser E. (2012). A practice: A psychometric analysis of life scales, Journal of Health Savings, 1(2),
99-123.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide for
Social Scientists. London: Routledge
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis hand book for social science (11th edition)],
Ankara: PegemA Publishing.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
Carter, S.C. & Brickhouse, N.W. (1989). What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate Perceptions. Journal of
Chemical Education, 66, 223-225.
Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental statistics for social research. London: Routledge.
Cramer, D. & Howitt, D. (2004). The SAGE dictionary of statistics. London:SAGE
Davis, L.L. (1992). “Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts”. Applied Nursing Research, 5,
194-197.
Doane, D.P. & Seward, L.E. (2011). Measuring Skewness. Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2), 1-18
Ertaş H., Şen, A.İ. & Eryılmaz O. (2009). Defining the complicating reasons of Secondary School Physics
lessons, XVIII. National Congress of Educational Sciences, October 1-3, İzmir, Turkey.
Gill P. (1999). The physics/maths problem again, Phys. Educ. v24, 83-97
Grassmann, H. (2008). Ahnung von der Materie – Physik für alle., Köln: Dumont
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hidi S. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the Academically Unmotivated: A Critical Issue for the 21st
Century, Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of
Management, 21(5), 967-988.
Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:
Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives," Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.
Karakuyu, Y. (2008). Problems of Physics Teachers in Physics Education: Afyonkarahisar Sample, Mustafa
Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 10, 147–159
Karasar, N. (1984). Bilimsel Araştırma Metodu. [Scientific Research Methods]. Ankara: Hacettepe Taş
Kitapçılık.
Kenny D.A. (2014). Measuring Model Fit, Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm on August 12th.
2014
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. (2nd Edition). NY: Guilford
Publications, Inc.
Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. & Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation (2
nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

105
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

Likert, R. (1932). ‘The method of constructing an attitude scale’ In Fishbein, M. (Ed) (1967) Readings in
attitude theory and measurement (pp. 90 – 95). New York, NY: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Luis Vieira, A. (2011). Interactive LISREL in Practice Getting Started with a SIMPLIS Approach, Springer
Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York (p.14)
Lynn, M.R. (1986). Determination and Quantification of Content Validity. Nursing Research, 35, pp. 382–385.
Mazur, E. (2013). http://mazur.harvard.edu, (access date: May, 2013).
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size
for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
McDermott, L.C. & Redish, E.F. (1999), PER-01: Resource Letter on Physics Education Research, American
Journal of Physics, vol. 67, 755-767
McDonald, R.P., & Ho, M.R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis.
Psychological Methods, 58, 431–443.
M.E.B. (2013). Ortaöğretim Fizik Dersi Öğretim Programı. [High School Physics Curriculum], Talim Terbiye
Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara, Turkey
Morrison, D. F. (1990). Multivariate statistical methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moss, S. (2014). Fit Indices for Structural Equation Modeling, retrieved from http://www.psych-
it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=277 on August 12th. 2014
Mualem, R. & Eylon, B.-S. (2007). “Physics with a smile” Explaining phenomena with a qualitative problem-
solving strategy. Physics Teacher, 45(3): 158–163.
Mulhall, P. & Gunstone, R. (2008). Views about physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to
teaching physics. Research in Science Education, 38(4): 435–462.
Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning Environment, Motivation, and Achievement in High School Science, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347-368
Oon, P-T & Subramaniam, R. (2011). On the declining interest in physics among students—from the perspective
of teachers, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 727-746
Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M. & Boyes, E. (2008). Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards
different learning activities, Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(2), 113-128
Örnek, F., Robinson, W. R. & Haugan, M. R. (2007). What Makes Physics Difficult? Science Education
International, 18(3), 165-172
Öztuna, D., Elhan, A.H. & Tüccar, E. (2006), Investigation of Four Different Normality Tests in Terms of Type
1 Error Rate and Power under Different Distributions, Turk J Med Sci., 36 (3): 171-176
Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported?
Research in Nursing & Health, 29 (5), 489-497
Politis, Y., Killeavy M & Mitchell P. I. (2007), Factors influencing the take-up of physics within second-level
education in Ireland—the teachers’ perspective, Irish Educ. Stud. v26, 39-55
Razali, N.M. & Wah, Y.B. (2011), Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and
anderson-darling tests, Journal of Statistical Modelling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33
Redish, E. F. (1994). Implications of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics, American Journal of Physics, 62,
796-803.
Shapiro, S.S. & Wilk, M.B. (1965), An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples), Biometrika 52,
591–611.
Şahin M., (2009). Exploring University Students’ Expectations and Beliefs about Physics and Physics Learning
in a Problem-Based Learning Context, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology
Education, 5(4), 321-333.
Şahin, E., & Yağbasan, R. (2012). Determining which introductory physics topics pre-service physics teachers
have difficulty understanding and what accounts for these difficulties, Eur. J. Phys. 33, 315–325
Süzük, E., Çorlu, M.A. & Gürel, C., (2011). Students’ Perceptions of Learning Efficacy of Introductory Physics
Course, Eurasian J. Phys. Chem. Educ., Jan, Special Issue: 65-71.
Tezbaşaran, A.A. (2008). Likert type scale preparation guide, third edition e-Book, Retrieved: 10.10.2013, from
http://www.academia.edu/1288035/
Waltz, C.F. & Bausell, R.B. (1981). Nursing Research: Design, Statistics, and Computer Analysis, Philadelphia:
F. A. Davis
Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K. & Boyes, E. (2003). Why aren’t secondary students interested in physics?
Physics Education, 38, 324–329.
Yıldırım, C. (1966). Eğitimde Araştırma Metotları. [Research Methods in Education]. Ankara: Akyıldız
Matbaası.
Yu-Ling Lan. (2012). Development of an Attitude Scale to Assess K-12 Teachers' Attitudes toward
Nanotechnology, International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1189-1210, DOI:
10.1080/09500693.2011.651657

106
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.7, 2016

Yurdagül, H. (2005). Content validity index usage in scale development studies for content validity, XIV.
National Congress of Educational Sciences, p.1-6, September 28-30, Denizli, Turkey.

107