Ağrının Bilişsel İntrüzyonu Ölçeği’nin (ABİÖ) Türkçe Versiyonu: Kanserli Hastalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bilişsel intrüzyon, ağrının kritik bir özelliğidir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Attridge ve arkadaşları tarafından 2015 yılında geliştirilen Ağrının Bilişsel İntrüzyonu Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini test etmektir. Şubat 2018-Haziran 2018 tarihleri arasında bir eğitim araştırma hastanesinin hematoloji kliniğinde yürütülen bu metodolojik çalışmaya yaşları 18 ile 65 arasında değişen 120 hasta dahil edildi. Araştırmanın verileri Sosyodemografik Özellikler Anketi, Ağrıyı Felaketleştirme Ölçeği (AFÖ) ve Ağrının Bilişsel İntrüzyonu Ölçeği (ABİÖ) ile toplanmıştır. ABİÖ’nün Cronbach's α katsayısı 0.96, madde-toplam korelasyon katsayıları 0.79 - 0.89 (p < 0.01) ve faktör yükleri 0.82 - 0.91 arasında değişmektedir. ABİÖ’nün AFÖ ile çok güçlü bir ilişkisi vardı(r = 0.835, p < 0.001). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, ölçeğin tek faktörlü bir yapı ortaya koymada iyi bir uyuma sahip olduğunu gösterdi. Madde analizi, iç tutarlılık, test-tekrar test, yüzey, ölçüt, yapı geçerliliği ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, ABİÖ’nün Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu ve ağrının bilişsel intrüzyonunu değerlendirmek için kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

• kanser
• ağrı
• bilişsel intrüzyon
• geçerlilik
• güvenilirlik

Turkish Version of The Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale (ECIPS): Validity and Reliability Study Among Patients With Cancer

Abstract

Cognitive intrusion is a critical characteristic of pain. The aim of the present study was to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale developed by Attridge et al. in 2015. This methodological study conducted in the hematology clinic of an educational research hospital between February 2018 and June 2018 included 120 patients aged between 18 and 65 years. The study data were collected with the Sociodemographic Characteristics Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale (ECIPS). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of ECIPS was 0.96 and item-total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.79 - 0.89 (p < 0.01) and factor loadings were ranged between 0.82 - 0.91. ECIPS had a very strong correlation with PCS (r = 0.835, p < 0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale has good fit in revealing a single-factor structure. Item analysis, internal consistency, test-retest, face, criterion, construct validity and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the Turkish version of the ECIPS was a valid and reliable tool and could be used to assess the level of cognitive intrusion of pain.

Keywords

• cancer
• pain
• cognitive intrusion
• validity
• reliability

References

1. Attridge, N., Crombez, G., Van Ryckeghem, D., Keogh, E., & Eccleston, C. (2015). The Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain: Scale development and validation. Pain, 156(10), 1978–1990. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000257
2. Babadağ, B., & Balcı Alparslan, G. (2017). The pain beliefs of nursing students. STED / Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi, 26(6), 244-250. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sted/issue/33871/375035
3. Berk, H. O., & Bahadir, G. (2007). The experience of chronic pain and pain beliefs. The journal of the Turkish Society of Algology, 19(4), 5–15.
4. 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(June), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
5. Caraceni, A., & Shkodra, M. (2019). Cancer pain assessment and classification. Cancers, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11040510
6. Cetin, A. A., Bektas, H., & Ozdogan, M. (2016). The west haven yale multidimensional pain inventory: reliability and validity of the Turkish version in individuals with cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 20(April), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.03.007
7. Dahlke, L. A. M., Sable, J. J., & Andrasik, F. (2017). Behavioral therapy: emotion and pain, a common anatomical background. Neurological Sciences, 38, 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2928-3
8. Dueñas, M., Ojeda, B., Salazar, A., Mico, J. A., & Failde, I. (2016). A review of chronic pain impact on patients, their social environment and the health care system. Journal of Pain Research, 9, 457–467. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S105892

9. Erdoğan, S., Nahcivan, N., & Esin, M. N. (Eds.). (2015). Research in Nursing: Process, Application and Criticism (2nd ed.). Nobel Medical Bookstores
10. Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. (2011). Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF. Arthritis Care and Research, 63(SUPPL. 11), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543
11. Johannessen, L. E. F. (2019). The commensuration of pain: How nurses transform subjective experience into objective numbers. Social Science and Medicine, 233(July 2018), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.042
12. Karatepe, H. T., Yavuz, F. K., & Turkcan, A. (2013). Ruminatif düşünme biçimi ölçeǧi’nin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirliǧi. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni, 23(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.5455/bcp.20121130122311
13. NCCN-The National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2020). Distress During Cancer Care. https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/distress-patient.pdf
14. Oral, T., & Arslan, C. (2017). Adaptation of the rumination about an Interpersonal Offense Scale into Turkish. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 6(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5455/jcbpr.268374
15. Orcan, F. (2018). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Which One to Use First? Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 9(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
16. Özveren, H., Faydalı, S., & Özdemir, S. (2016). Hemşirelerin ağrının farmakolojik olmayan yöntemlerle kontrolüne ilişkin bilgi ve uygulamaları. Turkish Journal of Clinics and Laboratory, 7(4), 99–105.
17. Sipilä, R. M., Haasio, L., Meretoja, T. J., Ripatti, S., Estlander, A. M., & Kalso, E. A. (2017). Does expecting more pain make it more intense? Factors associated with the first week pain trajectories after breast cancer surgery. Pain, 158(5), 922–930. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000859
18. Sönmez, V., & Gülderen Alacapınar, F. (2016). Preparing an Assessment Tool in Social Sciences (1st ed.). Anı Publishing.
19. Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.5
20. Türkçapar, M.H. (2018). Bilişsel davranışçı terapi temel ilkeler ve uygulama. (12th bsk). Epsilon Yayınevi
21. Ugurlu, M., Karakas Ugurlu, G., Erten, S., & Caykoylu, A. (2017). Validity of Turkish form of pain catastrophizing scale and modeling of the relationship between pain-related disability with pain intensity, cognitive, and emotional factors. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2017.1322672
22. Urquhart, D. M., Phyomaung, P. P., Dubowitz, J., Fernando, S., Wluka, A. E., Raajmaakers, P., Wang, Y., & Cicuttini, F. M. (2015). Are cognitive and behavioural factors associated with knee pain? A systematic review. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 44(4), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.07.005
23. Vakili, M. M., & Jahangiri, N. (2018). Content Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Tools in Educational, Behavioral, and Health Sciences Research. Journal of Medical Education Development, 10(28), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.29252/edcj.10.28.106
24. Wiech, K. (2016). Cognitive processes and pain perception. ENeuro, 354(6312). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0140-15.2016
25. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik : Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması [Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses]. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46(2), 74–85.