Odor awareness is currently trending topic, and significant measurement tools have recently been developed in this field. The Odor Awareness Scale Short Form (OAS-6) is one of these assessment instruments. To promote research on olfaction in Türkiye, there is a need to adapt this scale into Turkish. Thus, we aimed to adapt the OAS-6 into Turkish and test its validity and reliability. This study was designed as cross-sectional study. Data were collected online using convenience sampling between 19 September and 31 October 2025. The adaptation process of OAS-6 involved content validity, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), validity evidence, and test–retest with 2-week intervals analysis. These analyses were conducted using JASP and p value set at p < 0.05. All stages of the study adhered to the Helsinki Declaration. The study was completed with 450 participants (60% female). Ages ranged from 18 to 63 years (M = 26.2, SD = 11.4). EFA revealed a unidimensional structure explaining 47.1% of the total variance, while CFA confirmed an acceptable model fit (χ2/df = 1.56, RMSEA = 0.027, CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.958, SRMR = 0.041). Additionally, the scale’s internal consistency proved to be good (McDonald’s ω = 0.811; Cronbach’s α = 0.807). This study suggests that the Turkish version of the OAS-6 has acceptable validity and reliability as a unidimensional instrument within the Turkish cultural context. The scale may be useful for research and clinical settings where subjective odor perception is relevant (e.g., psychology, neurology, psychiatry, otorhinolaryngology, public health). Beyond clinical applications, the scale offers potential for humanities and social sciences research, including studies on attention, emotion, social interaction, and cultural differences in sensory awareness. Its concise six-item format reduces respondent burden and administrative time, making it adaptable to various data collection modalities, including digital platforms. The Turkish OAS-6 is promising for use in future epidemiological and interdisciplinary studies, although further validation with diverse samples is encouraged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Köksoy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: