Scale development study measures bioplastic awareness among university students, indicating sustainability knowledge.
Bioplastics are polymers that are biodegradable even under unsuitable post-use conditions and are mostly produced from renewable resources. The main aim of this research is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure bioplastic awareness. A quantitative research approach was adopted and a survey model was utilized within this scope. Convenient sampling was preferred in determining the participants. Validity and reliability analyses of the scale were conducted on a sample (n=261) of university students studying at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year levels. In the result of preparing open-ended questions and reviewing the relevant literature, a pool of 34 items was created. As a result of the content validity study conducted in line with the opinions of field experts, three items were removed and a draft scale of 31 items was obtained. In the results of exploratory factor analysis, four more items were eliminated and a two-factor structure was determined. The Bioplastic Awareness Scale (BIAAS) consists of a total of 27 items, 17 of which are in the first sub-dimension and 10 of which in the second sub-dimension. The first sub-dimension was named “environmental awareness,” and the second sub-dimension was named “reasons for using bioplastics.” The total variance explained by the two-factor structure was 42.768%, with which 23.591% were explained by the first factor and 19.177% by the second factor. The factor loadings of the items in the first sub-dimension ranged from 0.45 to 0.66, whereas the factor loadings of the items in the second sub-dimension ranged from 0.52 to 0.77. as a result of confirmatory factor analysis, RMSEA = 0.077 and SRMR = 0.066 values are gathered. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient for the overall scale was calculated as 0.92.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Işıtan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: