Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of the Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 208 - 222, 31.05.2022

Özlem Akın , Nülüfer Erbil

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.1015480

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability and validity by adapting to Turkish of the Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale (PSRS-36).
Methods: The sample of this methodological study included 360 volunteer pregnant women. The data were collected with questionnaire form and Turkish version of the Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale. In data analysis were used Cronbach's alpha coefficient, explanatory, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) after the language and content validity of Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale. For CFA one of the concordance models of structural equality, LISREL, was used.
Results: As a result of the explanatory factor analysis, it was found that the Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale had five sub dimensions structure as in the original form, and the factor loads of the model changed between 0.453-0.807. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of Turkish version of total Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale was 0.92. Cronbach’s alpha values of subdimensions of Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale. Turkish version was between 0.81 and 0.86. Of these x2/SD value 2.18, GFI 0.95, AGFI 0.94, CFI 0.95, RMSEA 0.077 and SRMR 0.075 were identified.
Conclusion: The Turkish version of Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale (PSRS-36) was determined a valid and reliable measurement tool for Turkish society. The Turkish version of Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale (PSRS-36) be used as data collection tool to determine pregnancy stress by midwives and nurses.

Keywords

Nurse, pregnancy, reliability, stress, scale, validity

References

• 1. Unsal P. Perception of Work Stress and the Role of Individual Differences in Coping, Behavior in Working Life, Current Approaches. Askin Keser, Gozde Yilmaz, Senay Yurur, editor. Izmit, Turkey: Umuttepe Publications; 2012. p. 387-422.
• 2. Bayik A, Altug Ozsoy S, Ardahan M, Ozkahraman S, Iz F. The situations of meeting stressor life events by women. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences. 2006; 9 (2): 1-12.
• 3. Yanikkerem E, Altiparmak S, Karadeniz G. The determination of the pyhsical health problems experienced during pregnancy summary. Family and Community Education Culture and Research Journal. 2006; 3 (10): 35–42.
• 4. Donmez S, Yeniel OA, Kavlak O. Comparison of strait anxietylevels of pregnant women who have vaginal of cesarean delivery. Gumushane University Journal of Health Sciences. 2014; 3 (3): 908-920.
• 5. Sahin EM, Kilicarslan S. Depressive, anxiety levels and affecting fcators of third trimester pregnant women. Medical Journal of Trakya University. 2010; 27(1): 51-58.
• 6. McCrory C, McNally S. The effect of pregnancy intention on maternal prenatal behaviours andparent and child health: results of an Irish cohort study. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 2013; 27 (2): 208–215. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12027
• 7. Ust Z, Pasinlioglu T, Ozkan H. Investigation of anxiety levels of pregnant women in labor. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences. 2013; 16: 110-115.
• 8. Nagle K, Green J, Walker K. The link between brain development, neonatal outcomes and maternal stress states. Journal of Neonatal Nursing. 2017; 23(6): 282–5.
• 9. Dastan N, Deniz N, Sahin B. The determination of mental status of pregnants by home visiting in Kars. Journal of Psyhiatric Nursing. 2015; 6 (2): 71-78.
• 10. Ozturk S, Erci B. The effect of training provided the primiparas in the postpartum period for motherhood and neonatal care on maternal selfconfidence. Gumushane University Journal of Health Siences. 2016; 5 (2): 25-31.
• 11. Oner N, Le Compte A. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Handbook. Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Publication, 1985.
• 12. Ulusoy M, Sahin N, Erkman H. Turkish version of the beck anxiety inventor, psychometric properties. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quartery. 1988; 12 (2): 28-35.
• 13. Hisli N. Validity and reliability of Beck Depression Inventory for university students. Turkish Journal of Psychology. 1989; 7 (23): 3-13.
• 14. Kitapcioglu G, Yanikkerem E, Sevil U, Yuksel D. Fear of childbirth and the postpartum period: A scale development and validation study. Journal of Adnan Menderes University Medical Faculty. 2008; 9 (1): 47-54.
• 15. Engindeniz AN, Kuey L, Kultur S. Validity and reliability study of Edinburgh postpartum depression scale Turkish form. Spring Symposium 1st Book. Ankara. Psychiatric Association Publications; 1996. p. 51-52.
• 16. Capik A, Pasinlioglu T. Validity and Reliability Study of the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale into Turkish. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2015; 22 (4); 260-269.
• 17. Akgul A. Statistical Analysis Techniques used in Medical Studies. 2nd ed. Ankara, Turkey: Emek Ofset Ltd. Sti; 2003. p. 86-92.
• 18. Chen CH. Revision and validation of a scale to assess pregnancy stress. Journal of Nursing Research. 2015; 23 (1): 25-32. doi: 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000047
• 19. Ozdamar K. Statistical Analysis with Software Packages. 5th edn. Eskisehir, Turkey: Kaan Publishing House; 2004. p. 450-455.
• 20. Tabachnick BG, Fidel LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. (Baloglu, M., Cev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayincilik, 2015.
• 21. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. 7th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Wolters Kluwer and Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2010.
• 22. Aksu G, Eser MT, Guzeller CO. Structural equation modeling applications with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2017.
• 23. Civelek ME. Structural Equality Modeling Methodology. 1st edition. Istanbul: Beta Publishing; 2018.
• 24. Taskin C, Akat O. Structural Equality Modeling in Research Methods. Bursa: Ekin Publishing House; 2010.p. 16-26.
• 25. International Test Commission (ITN). Guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing. 2018; 18(2), 101–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15305058. 2017.1398166
• 26. Gozum S, Aksayan S. A guide for trans-cultural adaptation of the scale I: Psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing. 2002; 4 (1): 9-14.
• 27. Karakoc FY, Donmez L. Basic Principles of Scale Development. Medical Education World. 2014; 13(40): 39-49.
• 28. Erefe I. The nature of the data collection instruments. In Erefe I, (editor) Research in Nursing. Istanbul, Turkey: Odak Press; 2002. p. 169-88.
• 29. Sencan H. Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements. Ankara, Turkey: Seckin Publishing, 2005.
• 30. Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. 6th ed. St Louis, USA: Saunders & Elsevier; 2009.
• 31. Buyukozturk S. Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences (7th). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Ak Publishing; 2007. p. 167-182.
• 32. Schumacker RE, Lomax RGA. Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
• 33. Wang J, Wang X. Structural equation modeling: applications using mplus: methods and applications. West Susex: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. p. 5-9.
• 34. Gozum S, Aksayan S. A guide for trans-cultural adaptation of the scale II: Psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing. 2003; 5(1): 3-33.
• 35. Tavsancil E. Attitude Measurement and Data Analysis with SPSS (4th ed.) Istanbul, Turkey: Nobel Broadcast Distribution; 2010.p. 5-200.
• 36. Karagoz Y. SPSS 22 Applied Biostatistics (2nd ed.) Ankara, Turkey: Nobel Publishing; 2015.
• 37. Buyukozturk S. Manual of data analysis for social sciences. (21st Edition). Ankara: Pegem Publications. 2015.