Mcgill Güçlendirmeyi Değerlendirme-Diyabet Anketi: Türkçe Geçerlik Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 126 - 137, 21.04.2025

Seda Başak , Gülcan Bahçecioğlu Turan , Zülfünaz Özer

https://doi.org/10.46413/boneyusbad.1517554

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırma, diyabetli bireylerde McGill Güçlendirmeyi Değerlendirme-Diyabet Anketi’nin (MEA-D) Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemek amacıyla yapıldı
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu araştırma diyabet tanısı konulan 300 kişiyle yürütülen metodolojik bir çalışmadır. Veriler kişisel bilgi formu ve MEA-D kullanılarak toplandı. Veriler açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi , Cronbach Alfa, madde-toplam puan korelasyonu ve test-tekrar test analizi kullanılarak değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Ölçek maddelerinin faktör yük değerlerinin 0.64-0.91 arasında değiştiği bulundu. Ölçekte uyum indeks değerleri x2/Sd 1.90, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95 RMSEA = 0.078, RMR = 0,07 ve SRMR = 0.08 olarak bulundu. Ölçeğin alt boyutlarının Cronbach’s alpha değerinin 0.92- 0.98 arasında değiştiği toplam Cronbach’s alpha değerinin ise 0.96 olduğu belirlendi. 28 maddeli ve 4 alt boyutlu ölçeğin Türkçe formunun orijinal ölçek formunda hiçbir değişiklik olmadan doğrulandığı görüldü.
Sonuç: MEA-D’nin Türkçe versiyonu, diyabet tanısı konulan kişilerin güçlenme durumlarının değerlendirilmesi ve klinik uygulamalarda kullanılması için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır.

Keywords

Geçerlilik , Güvenilirlik , Diyabet , Güçlendirme , Hasta

Mcgill Empowerment Assessment-Diabetes Questionnaire: Turkish Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Aim: The present study aimed to examine the Turkish validity and reliability of the McGill Empowerment Assessment-Diabetes (MEA-D) Questionnaire in individuals with diabetes.
Material and Method: The present study was conducted in methodological design. This methodological study was conducted on 300 individuals diagnosed with diabetes. Personal information form and MEA-D were used to collect the data. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, item-total score correlation, and test-retest analysis were used to evaluate the data collected.
Results: Factor loads of items were between 0.64-0.92. Fit index values were x²/SD 1.90, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95 RMSEA = 0.078, RMR = 0.07, and SRMR = 0.08. Sub-dimensions had Cronbach’s Alpha values between 0.92 and 0.98, while total Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.96. It was concluded that the Turkish version of the 28-item and 4 sub-dimension questionnaire was confirmed with no changes to the original form.
Conclusion: Turkish version of the MEA-D is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the empowerment status of individuals diagnosed with diabetes and for being used in clinical settings.

Keywords

Validity , Reliability , Diabetes , Empowerment , Patient

References

• Alavi, M., Visentin, D. C., Thapa, D. K., Hunt, G. E., Watson, R., Cleary, M. L. (2020). Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(9), 2209–2211. doi:10.1111/jan.14399
• Anderson, R. M., Funnell, M. M. (2010). Patient empowerment: myths and misconceptions. Patient Education and Counseling, 79(3), 277-282. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.025
• Anderson, R. M., Funnell, M. M., Fitzgerald, J. T., Marrero, D. G. (2000). The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: a measure of psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care, 23(6), 739-743. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.6.739
• Bartle, E. E., Couchonnal, G., Canda, E. R., Staker, M. D. (2002). Empowerment as a dynamically developing concept for practice: Lessons learned from organizational ethnography. Social Work, 47(1), 32-43. doi: 10.1093/sw/47.1.32
• Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
• Bolarinwa, O. A. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195-201. doi:10.4103/1117-1936.173959
• Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745–783. doi:10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
• Çokluk Ö, Ş. G., Büyüköztürk Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. (6. ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Davies, M. J., Aroda, V. R., Collins, B. S., Gabbay, R. A., Green, J., Maruthur, N. M., …Buse, J. B. (2022). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care, 45(11), 2753–2786. doi: 10.2337/dci22-0034
• DeVellis, R. F., Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications. Duarte-Díaz, A., González-Pacheco, H., Rivero-Santana, A., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Perestelo-Pérez, L., Peñate, W., …
• INDICA Team (2022). Factors associated with patient empowerment in Spanish adults with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional analysis. Health Expect, 25(6), 2762-2774. doi: 10.1111/hex.13501.
• European Patients Forum. (2015). EPF Background Brief: Patient Empowerment. 3-11. Brussels, Belgium: European Patients Forum, 3-11. Access date 19.05.2023, https://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/campaign-patient-empowerment/epf_briefing_patientempowerment_2015.pdf
• Finch, W. H. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis. Sage Publications.
• Funnell, M. M., Anderson, R. M., Arnold, M. S., Barr, P. A., Donnelly, M., Johnson, P. D., … White, N. H. (1991). Empowerment: an idea whose time has come in diabetes education. The Diabetes Educator, 17(1), 37-41. doi: 10.1177/014572179101700108
• Gagnon, J., Hersson-Edery, F., Reoch, J., Zhang, H., Schuster, T., Pluye, P. (2020). Development and validation of the mcgill empowerment assessment–diabetes (MEA-D). Diabetes Spectrum, 33(4), 307-314. doi: 10.2337/ds19-0075
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7 ed.). Londra: Pearson Education.
• Jahanpeyma, P., Karaman, E., Yildirim, Y., Sahin, S., Aykar, F. S. (2020). Adaptation of Diabetic Empowerment Scale-Short Form to older individuals and to Turkish language: validity and reliability study. The Eurasian Journal of Medicine, 52(2), 120. doi: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2020.19155
• Johnson, R. A., Wichern, D. W. (2007). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 6th ed. USA: Pearson Education Publications.
• Johnson, R. B., Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. New York: Sage Publications.
• Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach’ın alfa güvenirlik katsayısı. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6(1), 47-48. doi: 10.5455/jmood.20160307122823
• Kim, C. (2016). Misuse of exploratory factor analysis and its remedies. Survey Research, 17(1), 1-29.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
• Kula Kartal, S., Mor Dirlik, E. (2016). Geçerlik kavramının tarihsel gelişimi ve güvenirlikte en çok tercih edilen yöntem: Cronbach Alfa Katsayısı. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(4), 1865-1879.
• Lambrinou, E., Hansen, T. B., Beulens, J. W. (2019). Lifestyle factors, self-management and patient empowerment in diabetes care. European journal of preventive cardiology, 26(2_suppl), 55–63. doi: 10.1177/2047487319885455
• Lin, X., Xu, Y., Pan, X., Xu, J., Ding, Y., Sun, X., … Shan, P. F. (2020). Global, regional, and national burden and trend of diabetes in 195 countries and territories: an analysis from 1990 to 2025. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 14790. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71908-9
• Nazir, S. U. R., Hassali, M. A., Saleem, F., Bashir, S., Aljadhey, H. (2016). Disease related knowledge, medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Pakistan. Primary Care Diabetes, 10(2), 136-141. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2015.09.004
• Noble, S., Scheinost, D., Constable, R. T. (2019). A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 203, 116157. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116157
• Noh, G. (2019). The proper methods of statistical analysis for dissertation:SPSS & AMOS 21. Hanbit Academy.
• Orçan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414-421. doi: 10.21031/epod.394323
• Özcan, H. (2012). Diyabet Güçlendirme Ölçeği'nin Türk toplumu için geçerlik güvenirliğinin incelenmesi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
• Panagiotakos, D. (2009). Health measurement scales: methodological issues. The Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal, 3, 160–165. doi: 10.2174/1874192400903010160
• Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147
• Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199
• Prinsen, C. A., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., De Vet, H. C., … Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147-1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
• Saeedi, P., Petersohn, I., Salpea, P., Malanda, B., Karuranga, S., Unwin, N., … IDF Diabetes Atlas Committee (2019). Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 157, 107843. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843
• Seçer, İ. (2020). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Spangler, W. D., Gupta, A., Kim, D. H., Nazarian S. (2012). Developing and validating historiometric measures of leader individual differences by computerized content analysis of documents. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1152-1172. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.002.
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson. Access date 20.05.2023, https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/4/0134790545.pdf
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., Ullman, J. B. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7 ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• World Health Organization. (WHO) (2023). Diabetes. Access date 15.05.2023, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes
• Xia, Y., Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 409-428. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
• Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.
• Zill, J. M., Scholl, I., Härter, M., Dirmaier, J. (2015). Which dimensions of patient-centeredness matter?-Results of a web-based expert delphi survey. Plos One, 10(11), e0141978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141978
• Vilagut, G. (2014). Test-retest reliability. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3001