A Psychometric Evalution Of The Turkish Version Of The Cardiovvascular Limittations And Symptoms Profile

Year 2015, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 71 - 82, 09.03.2015

Derya Özcanlı Atik , Sezgi Çınar

https://doi.org/10.16899/ctd.30638

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Aim: To determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of “Cardiovascular Limitations and Symptoms Profile” in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome. Material and Methods: The universe of this research consisted of patients with acute coronary syndrome who applied to the Cardiology Clinic of the State Hospital between April 2011 and September 2011 and who received treatment. Internal consistency and time invariance (test-retest correlation) methods were used in the analysis of reliability. The validity of the scale was assessed in terms of language, criterion-related validity and discriminant validity, and construct validity.

Results: In our study the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.92, and the item-total correlation of the statements in the scale was equal to or higher than the limit value of 0.20. At the end of the analysis of language, criterion and discriminant validity; it was determined that the scale was comprehensible for patients and valid for measuring physical, social and psychological health in patients with acute coronary syndrome. According to the assessment of construct validity, the items that questioned mobility and social life activities in the original scale were grouped under the same factor, while the four items that questioned domestic activities were grouped under two different factors.

Conclusions: The analyses have shown that the Turkish version of the Cardiovascular Limitations and Symptoms Profile is a reliable and valid scale and it is suitable for use in the Turkish society.

 

Keywords

Cardiovascular Limitations and Symptoms Profile, validity, reliability

Kardiyovasküler Kısıtlılık Ve Semptomlar Profili’nin (Clasp) Türkçe Versiyonunun Psikometrik

Abstract

Amaç: Akut Koroner Sendromlu hastalarda “Kardiyovasküler Kısıtlılık ve Semptomlar Profili”nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini yapmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu araştırmanın evrenini, Devlet Hastanesi Kardiyoloji kliniğine Nisan 2011-Eylül 2011 tarihleri arasında başvurarak tedavi gören tüm akut koroner sendrom geçirmiş hastalar oluşturdu. Güvenirlik incelemesinde iç tutarlılık ve zamana karşı değişmezlik (test-retest korelasyonu) yöntemlerini kullandık. Ölçeğin geçerliğini; dil, ölçüt ve ayırd edici geçerlik, yapı geçerliği ile inceledik.

Bulgular: Çalışmamızda, ölçeğin Cronbach alfa değeri 0.92, ölçekteki ifadelerin madde toplam korelasyonu, sınır değer olan 0.20 düzeyinde ya da daha yüksekti.  Yapılan dil, ölçüt ve ayırd edici geçerlik çalışmaları sonucunda; ölçeğin hastalar tarafından anlaşılabilir, akut koroner sendromlu hastalarda fiziksel, sosyal ve ruhsal sağlık durumunu ölçmede geçerli bir ölçek olduğunu belirledik. Yapı geçerliği sonucunda, orijinal ölçekte mobilite ve sosyal yaşam etkinliklerini sorgulayan maddeler aynı faktör yapısı altında, ev içi faaliyetlerini sorgulayan dört madde farklı iki faktör altında toplandı.

Sonuç: Analizler, Kardiyovasküler Kısıtlılık ve Semptomlar Profili’nin Türkçe versiyonu geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçektir ve Türk halkında kullanılmaya uygundur.

 

Keywords

Kardiyovasküler Kısıtlılık ve Semptomlar Profili, geçerlilik, güvenirlik

References

• Turkish Adult Risk Factor Study 2009[Internet].[updated: 10 Feb 2012.] Available from URL: http://tekharf.org/images/2009/icin.pdf
• 2.Lopez V, Chair SY, Thompson DR, Tsui YY, Lewin RJ. A psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Cardiovascular Limitations and Symptoms Profile in patients with coronary heart disease. J Clin Nurs 2008;17:2327-34.
• Oldridge NB. Outcome assessment in cardiac rehabilitation: health-related quality of life and economic evaluation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1997; 17(3):179-94.
• Thompson DR, Roebuck A. The measurement of healthrelated quality of life in patients with coronary heart disease.J Cardiovasc Nurs 2001; 16(1):28-33.
• Asadi-Lari M, Javadi HR, Melville M, Oldridge NB, Gray D. Adaptation of the MacNew quality of life questionnaire after myocardial infarction in an Iranian population. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1:23-9.
• Roebuck A, Furze G, Thompson DR. Health-related quality of life after myocardial infarction: an interview study. J Adv Nurs 2001; 34(6):787-94.
• Smith HJ, Taylor R, Mitchell A. A comparison of four quality of life instruments in cardiac patients: SF-36, QLI, QLMI, and SEIQoL. Heart 2000; 84:390-94.
• Kara M, Mirici A. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Turkish validity and reliability of the self-efficacy scale. The Eurasıan Journal of Medıcıne 2002; 34:61-6.
• Lewin RJ, Thompson DR, Martin CR, Stuckey N, Devlen J, Michaelson S, Maguire P. Validation of the Cardiovascular Limitations and Symptoms Profile (CLASP) in chronic stable angina.J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2002; 22(3):184-91.
• Gozum S, Aksayan S. Guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of the scale II: Psychometric properties and cross-cultural comparison.
• Journal of Nursing Research Development 2003;5(1), 3-14.
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6):473-83.
• Pinar R.New concept in health research: Quality of life; validity and reliability of a quality of life measurement scale. Nursing Bulletin 1995; 9:85-95.
• Zigmond AS, Snaith PR. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67:361-70.
• Aydemir O. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Study.Turkish Journal of Psychiatry1997; 8(4):280-87.
• Tavsancil E. Attitudes Measurement and Data Analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Publishing Ltd; 2002.
• Oksuz E, Malhan S. Kalitemetri Health related quality of life. Ankara: Baskent University; 2005. p.68-104.
• Akgul, A. Statistical Analysis Methods for Medical Research "SPSS Applications”. 1th ed. Ankara: Emek Ofset Ltd. Şti.; 2005. p.440-45.
• Kalayci S. SPSS Applied Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Ankara: Asil Publishing; 2006. p.321-31.
• Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. 2thed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. p.154-74.
• Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3th ed.New York: Guilford Press; 2010. p.230-62.
• Ercan İ, Kan İ. Reliability and validity scales. Uludag University Journal of the Faculty of Medicine 2004; 30(3): 211-6.
• Ægisdóttir S, Gerstein LH, Cinarbas D. Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: equivalence, bias, and translations. The Counseling Psychologist 2008; 36(2):188-219.
• Safak S. Role of the family, Distribution Function and Responsibility.Symposium on Social and Economic Status of the Turkish family. Ankara: Premiership SHÇEK Press; 1989. p. 34-43.