Gebelerin Kendini Kabul Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik çalışması

Year 2024, Volume: 16 Issue: 3, 302 - 310, 29.10.2024

Emine İbici Akça , Nilay Gökbulut , Yeşim Aksoy Derya

https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.1526016

Abstract

Amaç: Araştırma Brezilya’da geliştirilen gebelerde kendini kabul ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonunu oluşturmak ve psikometrik özelliklerini test etmek amacıyla yapıldı.
Yöntem: Metodolojik türde olan araştırma Aralık 2021-Nisan 2022 tarihleri arasında, Türkiye’nin kuzeyinde bir Eğitim Araştırma Hastanesinin gebe polikliniklerine başvuran 576 gebe ile gerçekleştirildi. Araştırmada GKKÖ’nün geçerlik analizinde dil, kapsam, yapı; güvenirlik analizinde iç tutarlılık ve test-tekrar test analizleri kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonrasında ölçeğin açıklanan varyans yüzdesi ve maddelerin faktör yükleri yeterli; doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonrasında ölçeğin uyum indeksleri uygun aralıkta bulundu. Orijinal GKKÖ’nün iki alt boyut ve 10 maddelik yapısı faktör analizleri ile doğrulandı. İç tutarlılık analizinde ölçek maddelerinin madde toplam puan korelasyonları yeterli ve GKKÖ toplam Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0.93 olarak hesaplandı. Ölçeğin test-tekrar test sonuçları arasındaki ilişkiye ait korelasyon değeri ise yüksek bulundu.
Sonuçlar: GKKÖ’nün Türkçe versiyonunun gebelerde kendini kabul düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesinde Türk toplumu için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Gebelik, Güvenilirlilik, Geçerlilik, Ebelik

Validity and Reliability Testing of the Turkish Version of the Self-Acceptance Scale for Pregnant Women

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to adapt the Self-Acceptance Scale for Pregnant Women (SAS-PW), which was developed in Brazil, to Turkish and test the psychometric properties of its Turkish version.
Method: This methodological study was carried out with 576 pregnant women who presented to the pregnancy outpatient clinics of a Research and Training Hospital in northern Turkey between December 2021 and April 2022. The validity of the Turkish version of SAS-PW was tested by conducting linguistic, content, and construct validity analyses, while its reliability was tested by conducting internal consistency and test-retest analyses.
Results: According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis, the factor load values of the items and the rates of the total variance in scale scores explained by the factors were sufficient. The confirmatory factor analysis results demonstrated that the goodness-of-fit indices of the scale were within suitable ranges. The 2-factor and 10-item construct of the original SAS-PW was confirmed based on the factor analyses. The item-total score correlations of the scale were found sufficient, and the total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of SAS-PW was determined to be 0.93. The test-retest analysis of the scale scores revealed a strong correlation between the scores of the two implementations.
Conclusions: The Turkish version of SAS-PW is a valid and reliable measurement instrument to evaluate the self-acceptance levels of pregnant women in Turkish society.

Keywords

Pregnancy, Reliability, Validity, Midwifery

References

• 1. Lu Q, Wang B, Zhang R, Wang J, Sun F, Zou G. Relationship between emotional ıntelligence, self-acceptance, and positive coping styles among chinese psychiatric nurses in shandong. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:837917.
• 2. Meireles JFF, Neves CM, Morgado FF da R, Muzik M, Ferreira MEC. Development and psychometric properties of the self-acceptance scales for pregnant and postpartum women. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2021;128(1):258-82.
• 3. Li S, Zhang X, Luo C, Chen M, Xie X, Gong F, Lv F, Xu J, Han J, Fu L, Sun Y. The mediating role of self-acceptance in the relationship between loneliness and subjective well-being among the elderly in nursing home: A cross-sectional study. Medicine. 2021;100(40):e27364.
• 4. Linde K, Lehnig F, Nagl M, Stepan H, Kersting A. Course and prediction of body image dissatisfaction during pregnancy: a prospective study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2022;22:719
• 5. Salzer EB, Meireles JFF, Toledo AFÂ, de Siqueira MR, Ferreira MEC, Neves CM. Body ımage assessment tools in pregnant women: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023;20:2258.
• 6. Meireles JF, Neves CM, de Carvalho PH, Ferreira ME. Body dissatisfaction among pregnant women: an integrative review of the literature. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva. 2015;20(7):2091–2103.
• 7. Watson B, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Broadbent J, Skouteris H. The meaning of body image experiences during the perinatal period: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. Body image. 2015;14:102–13.
• 8. Plante A-S, Doyon A-A, Savard C, ÉquiLibre G, Meilleur D, Achim J, et al. Weight changes and body image in pregnant women: a challenge for health care professionals. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research. 2020;81.
• 9. Prinds C, Nikolajsen H, Folmann B. Yummy Mummy. The ideal of not looking like a mother. Women and Birth. 2020;33, e266-e273.
• 10. Aksay Y, Gülhan YB, Saygın N, Körükcü Ö. Is There any Effect of Psychosocial Health of Pregnant Women on Birth Preference ? GUSB. 2017;6(4):138-45.
• 11. Küçükkaya B, Altan Sarıkaya N, Kahyaglu Süt H, Öz S. The relation between body perception related to the weight gain during pregnancy and acceptance of pregnancy. Jaren. 2020;6(3):426-32.
• 12. Kumcağız H, Ersanlı E, Murat N. The development of a self-perception of pregnants scale and its psychometric features. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing. 2017;8(1):23–31.
• 13. Sohrabi Z, Kazemi A, Farajzadegan Z, Janighorban M. Body perception in pregnant women: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2023;23:165.
• 14. Fahami F, Amini-Abchuyeh M, Aghaei A. The relationship between psychological wellbeing and body ımage in pregnant women. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2018;23(3):167–71.
• 15. Przybyła-Basista H, Kwiecińska E, Ilska M. Body acceptance by pregnant women and their attitudes toward pregnancy and maternity as predictors of prenatal depression. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17: 9436.
• 16. Tsuchiya S, Yasui M, Ohashi K. Assessing body dissatisfaction in Japanese women during the second trimester of pregnancy using a new figure rating scale. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2019;21(3):367–74.
• 17. Mutlugüneş E, Mete S. The relationship between the role of motherhood and acceptance of pregnancy with nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Cumhuriyet Nursing Journal. 2013;2(1):8-14.
• 18. Arafat SMY, Chowdhury HR, Qusar MMAS, Hafez MA. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. Journal of Behavioral Health. 2016;5(3):129–36.
• 19. Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;(11):80–89.
• 20. Davis L. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194–7
• 21. Ayre C, Scally A. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2014;47(1):79–86.
• 22. Alpar R. Applied statistics and validity-reliability. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2016.
• 23. Howard MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we ımprove? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2016;32(1):51–62.
• 24. Karagöz Y. Scientific research methods and publication ethics. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Publishing; 2021.
• 25. Beavers AS, Lounsbury JW, Richards JK, Huck SW, Skolits GJ, Esquivel SL. Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2013;18(6) 26. Souza AC de, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello E de B. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiologia e Servicos de Saude. 2017;26(3).
• 27. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.
• 28. Klem L. Structural equation modeling. In: Bryant, FB, Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, editors, Reading and understanding more multivariare statistics. American Psycholog ical Association: Washington D.C; 2000.
• 29. Costa V, Sarmento R. Confirmatory factor analysis – a case study (arXiv may); 2019.
• 30. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research. 2006;99(6):323–38.
• 31. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60:34–42.
• 32. Sümbüloğlu K, Akdağ B. Regression methods and correlation analysis. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Publishing; 2007.
• 33. İnceoğlu F, Demir P, Aydoğdu H. Adaptation of fear of missing out scale (FoMOs) to dentistry. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2021;8:530–7.
• 34. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sbille V, Hardouin J-B. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12:176.
• 35. Ledesma RD, Ferrando PJ, Trógolo MA, Poó FM, Tosi JD, Castro C. Exploratory factor analysis in transportation research: Current practices and recommendations. Transportation Research Part F. 2021;78:340–52.
• 36. Watkins MW. Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology. 2018;44(3):219–46.