Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire

📜
Abstract

The Smart tools Proneness Questionnaire (STP-Q) is a psychological assessment tool designed to measure an individual's natural inclination and willingness to integrate smart technologies into their daily life. As digital devices like voice assistants, smart home systems, and automated applications become ubiquitous, understanding human-technology interaction requires moving beyond simple usage metrics. The STP-Q captures the nuanced psychological drivers behind Technology adoption, offering a multidimensional view of Digital behavior.

Originally developed to assess technology proneness in general contexts, this specific adaptation translates and validates the instrument for the Turkish population. Cross-cultural validation is a critical step in psychometrics, as cultural norms, digital literacy, and socioeconomic factors heavily influence how different populations perceive and interact with technology. By adapting the STP-Q, researchers can accurately capture the technological predispositions of Turkish individuals without linguistic or cultural bias.

This validated Turkish version demonstrates robust psychometric properties, confirming that the scale reliably measures technology proneness across different cultural landscapes. It serves as a vital resource for researchers, technologists, and psychologists aiming to understand Digital behavior, design culturally responsive technologies, or investigate the psychological impacts of rapid digital transformation.

🏷
Keywords
Smart tools
psychometrics
Cross-cultural adaptation
Technology adoption
Digital behavior
Turkish validation

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.95
Validation Country
📍 Turkey

Translation Method: Forward and Back-Translation

Authors

👤 Serdar Yılmaz Esen

👤 Ceyhun Türkmen
✉ [email protected]

👤 Tülin Düger

Purpose

While existing psychometric tools often focus on the extremes of technology use—such as the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) for pathological behavior or the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for perceived utility—the STP-Q fills a crucial gap by measuring general proneness or inclination. It provides a holistic view of everyday technology engagement, capturing not just whether someone uses a tool, but their underlying psychological disposition toward it.

For researchers and practitioners, this scale is invaluable for predicting Technology adoption curves, designing user-centric digital environments, and understanding the psychological barriers to tech integration. By offering a culturally validated version for Turkey, the STP-Q enables cross-cultural comparative studies, allowing scientists to untangle universal human-technology interactions from culture-specific behaviors.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the STP-Q is 'smart tool proneness,' defined as an individual's behavioral and psychological tendency to adopt, utilize, and rely on smart technologies. This construct is conceptualized as multidimensional, moving beyond a simple binary of user versus non-user to explore the specific motivations driving technological engagement.

The scale operationalizes this construct through a tripartite framework. The first dimension, utilitarian use, captures the practical, efficiency-driven motivations for using Smart tools, such as automating chores or managing schedules. The second dimension, hedonic and social use, reflects the entertainment and interpersonal connectivity aspects of technology. Finally, the inclination to delegate tasks measures a user's psychological comfort with relinquishing control to an automated system, a critical factor in the adoption of advanced AI and smart home devices.

Validity

To establish the construct validity of the Turkish STP-Q, researchers conducted rigorous convergent validity testing by comparing it against established measures of Digital behavior. Specifically, the scale was evaluated alongside the E-Learning Readiness Scale and the Nomophobia Questionnaire.

The findings revealed significant correlations between smart tool proneness and these related constructs. For instance, individuals with a higher propensity to use Smart tools also demonstrated greater readiness for digital learning environments and higher levels of nomophobia (the fear of being without a mobile device). These correlations provide strong evidence that the STP-Q accurately captures a broad, interconnected web of digital behaviors and attitudes, aligning perfectly with theoretical expectations in cyberpsychology.

Convergent & Discriminant Validation Correlations

Reference Instrument Correlation Coefficient (r)
E-Learning Readiness Scale
Nomophobia Questionnaire

Reliability

The Turkish adaptation of the STP-Q demonstrated exceptional reliability metrics, indicating that the tool measures technology proneness with high precision and minimal error. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, yielding a remarkable value of 0.954 for the total scale. This excellent coefficient confirms that the items within the questionnaire are highly interrelated and consistently measure the same underlying construct.

Furthermore, the temporal stability of the instrument was confirmed through test-retest reliability analysis. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.851 was observed, which falls well into the 'good' to 'excellent' range according to standard psychometric guidelines. This indicates that an individual's scores on the STP-Q remain stable over time, proving the scale is a dependable measure of enduring technological traits rather than transient states.

Factor Analysis

To verify the structural integrity of the translated scale, researchers employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The goal of this analytical approach is to uncover the underlying latent variables that explain the pattern of responses across the questionnaire's items.

The EFA results successfully replicated the tripartite structure of the original English instrument. The items naturally clustered into three distinct factors: utilitarian use, hedonic and social use, and the inclination to delegate tasks. This structural alignment is a crucial piece of psychometric evidence, as it demonstrates that the theoretical dimensions of smart tool proneness are interpreted similarly by Turkish respondents, ensuring cross-cultural equivalence of the construct.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Utilitarian Use Measures the practical and efficiency-driven motivations for utilizing Smart tools.
Hedonic and Social Use Assesses the use of Smart tools for entertainment, pleasure, and social connectivity.
Inclination to Delegate Tasks Evaluates the user's willingness and psychological comfort in allowing automated systems to take over tasks.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Language Turkish
Population General population, Adults
Age Group 18 and older

Sample

The study included 374 adult participants (100 men and 274 women) from various regions of Turkey. The mean age of the sample was 27.47 years (SD = 9.59). Participants were required to be over 18 years old and active users of Smart tools.

Permissions & Test Year

Permission for the translation and adaptation of the questionnaire was obtained from the original developers of the STP-Q.

Test Year: 2024

📄
Cite This Paper

Serdar Yılmaz Esen, Ceyhun Türkmen, Tülin Düger (2024). Smart tools Proneness Questionnaire. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309299

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
42 references
  1. MR Hoehe (2020). Going digital: how technology use may influence human brains and behavior. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 22 (2), 93. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mhoehe
  2. A Haleem (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3 275. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
  3. D Plekhanov (2023). Digital transformation: A review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 41 (6), 821. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.007
  4. C Irugalbandara (2023). A secure and smart home automation system with speech recognition and power measurement capabilities. Sensors (Basel), 23 (13), 5784. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/s23135784
  5. H Lin (2016). IoT privacy and security challenges for smart home environments. Information (Basel), 7 (3), 44. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/info7030044
  6. B Ali (2018). Cyber and physical security vulnerability assessment for IoT-based smart homes. Sensors (Basel), 18 (3), 817. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/s18030817
  7. J Navarro (2022). Development of the Smart tools Proneness Questionnaire (STP-Q): an instrument to assess the individual propensity to use Smart tools. Ergonomics, 65 (12), 1639. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2048895
  8. O Parlangeli (2024). Moral judgements of errors by AI systems and humans in civil and criminal law. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43 (9), 1718. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2283622
  9. C Colin (2023). The user experience of low-techs: from user problems to design principles. Journal of User Experience, 18 (2), 68.
  10. FD Davis (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13 (3), 319. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  11. A Bianchi (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. Cyberpsychol Behav, 8 (1), 39. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39
  12. KS Young (1996). Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the Internet: a case that breaks the stereotype. Psychol Rep, 79 (3 Pt 1), 899. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.3.899
  13. SG Lee (2013). The impact of cultural differences on Technology adoption. J World Bus, 48 (1), 20. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.003
  14. M Ahmad (2023). The potential of AI in facilitating cross-cultural communication through translation. Journal of Namibian Studies, 37 107.
  15. CB Terwee (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol, 60 (1), 34. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
  16. DE Beaton (2000). Guidelines for the process of Cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25 (24), 3186. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  17. E Heim (2021). Reporting cultural adaptation in psychological trials—The RECAPT criteria. Clin Psychol Eur, 3 e6351. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.6351
  18. F Alem (2016). Measuring e-learning readiness concept: scale development and validation using structural equation modeling. International Journal of E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning, 6 (4), 193. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.17706/ijeeee.2016.6.4.193-207
  19. MA Bircan (2022). Validity and reliability study for the Turkish adaptation of the e-learning readiness scale. Pedagogical Perspectives, 1 (2), 89. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.29329/pedper.2022.493.2
  20. C Yıldırım (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Comput Human Behav, 49 130. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059
  21. C Yıldırım (2016). A growing fear: Prevalence of nomophobia among Turkish college students. Information Development, 32 (5), 1322. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915599025
  22. JM Bland (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ, 314 (7080), 572. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
  23. TK Koo (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med, 15 (2), 155. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  24. HA DeVon (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh, 39 (2), 155. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x
  25. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Pearson; 2010.
  26. JP Weir (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res, 19 (1), 231.
  27. JW Berry (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. Int J Intercult Relat, 29 (6), 697. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013
  28. V Venkatesh (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  29. M. Hilbert (2011). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34 (6), 479. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001
  30. EJ Helsper (2016). Do the rich get digitally richer? Quantity and quality of support for digital engagement. Inf Commun Soc, 20 (5), 700. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203454
  31. M Bünning (2023). Digital gender gap in the second half of life is declining: Changes in gendered internet use between 2014 and 2021 in Germany. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 78 (8), 1386. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbad079
  32. Z Xinyan (2022). Modeling the adoption of medical wearable devices among the senior Adults: Using hybrid SEM-neural network approach. Front Public Health, 10 1016065. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1016065
  33. A Taylor (2024). Appetite for distraction? A systematic literature review on customer smartphone distraction. Int J Inform Manage, 75 102722. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102722
  34. S Gøthesen (2023). Empowering homes with intelligence: An investigation of smart home Technology adoption and usage. Internet of Things, 24 100944. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.100944
  35. R Pangriya (2021). The Differencing Views of Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model: A Literature. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ, 12 (4), 1.
  36. GW Small (2020). Brain health consequences of digital technology use. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 22 (2), 179. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/gsmall
  37. S Fryman (2021). Measuring smartphone dependency and exploration of consequences and comorbidities. Comput Hum Behav Rep, 4 100108. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100108
  38. MR Hoehe (2020). The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: where do we stand?. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 22 (2), 101. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte
  39. SA Satici (2017). Harmony in Life Scale—Turkish version: Studies of validity and reliability. Psicol Reflex Crit, 30 (1), 18. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-017-0073-9
  40. S Kesici (2010). Turkish adaptation study of Internet Addiction Scale. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 13 (2), 185. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0067
  41. RR McCrae (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 15 (1), 28. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253
  42. KB Johnson (2021). Precision medicine, AI, and the future of personalized health care. Clin Transl Sci, 14 (1), 86. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12884

Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire Items

✉ Items are not yet available

The scale author has been contacted to obtain permission to share the items. This section will be updated once the items are provided.

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/smart-tools-proneness-questionnaire/

Mohammed looti. "Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 12 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/smart-tools-proneness-questionnaire/.

Mohammed looti. "Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/smart-tools-proneness-questionnaire/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/smart-tools-proneness-questionnaire/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Smart Tools Proneness Questionnaire. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. The Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) Tools
  2. Pain Audit Tools (PAT)
  3. Boredom Proneness Scale
  4. Dependence Proneness Scale-Form One
  5. Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire – Urdu Version
  6. Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire – Spanish Version
  7. Lung Information Needs Questionnaire / Longziekten Informatie Behoefte Questionnaire
  8. Questionnaire for Beginning Teachers and Questionnaire for Mentor Teachers
  9. Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire / Illness Perception Questionnaire-Kort / Ziekteperceptievragenlijst
  10. Assistive Technology Usability Questionnaire for people with Neurological diseases Questionnaire (NATU Quest)
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top