Adaptation of Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised to Turkish Society

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 490 - 505, 30.11.2022

Öznur Özdemir Gökmen , Nülüfer Erbil , Birsel Demirbağ

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.1080337

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to adapt the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R) to Turkish and test its reliability and validity.
Methods: The methodological study was conducted in maternity ward of Iğdır State Hospital between the dates of 15.06.2016-15.09.2016. All of the women in the maternity ward that had given birth formed the population of the study. The study was completed by interviewing 219 volunteer women that are suitable for the criteria before making a sampling choice. Validity and reliability analysis, language and content validity, and explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis were tested by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Results: The language validity of the BSS-R was provided by the translation-retranslation method, later its content validity was provided by making necessary changes in the direction of opinions of specialists. The scale in its final form was applied to women in the sample group after making pre-application. The factor analysis of scale was evaluated by explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis. It was obtained that factor load distribution of scale changes between 0.593-0.899 and keeps the three-dimensional structure it’s in original form. Factor load distribution of BSS-R of scale changes between 0.593-0.899 and keeps three-dimensional structure as its original form. Fit index values were found as x2/SD value 2.06, RMSEA 0.070, CFI 0.95, SRMR 0.078, GFI 0.93, AGFI 0.89 and NFI 0.92. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the 10-item BSS-R was 0.72, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients of its sub-dimensions were between 0.70 and 0.78.
Conclusion: It was obtained that BSS-R which was adapted to Turkish is a reliable, valid and suitable measurement instrument means for Turkish culture.

Keywords

Birth satisfaction, scale, validity, reliability, nursing

Doğum Memnuniyet Ölçeği Revize Formunun Türk Toplumuna Uyarlanması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Doğum Memnuniyet Ölçeği Revize (DMÖ-R) Formunu Türkçe’ye uyarlamak, geçerlilik ve güvenirliğini test etmek amacıyla yapılmıştır.
Yöntem: Çalışma Iğdır Devlet Hastanesi Doğum sonrası biriminde 15.06.2016-15.09.2016 tarihleri arasında yürütülmüştür. Çalışmanın evrenini doğum sonrası biriminde olan doğum eylemini gerçekleştirmiş tüm kadınlar oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada örneklem seçimine gidilmeden çalışma kriterlerine uyan ve çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden 219 kadın ile çalışma tamamlanmıştır. Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik analizi dil ve kapsam geçerliliği, açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, Cronbach alfa katsayısı kullanılarak test edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Doğum Memnuniyet Ölçeği Revize Formu’nun (DMÖ-R) dil geçerliliği çeviri-geri çeviri yöntemi ile sağlanmış, daha sonra uzman görüşüne sunulan ölçek uzmanların önerileri doğrultusunda gerekli düzeltmeler yapılarak kapsam geçerliliği sağlanmıştır. Son hali verilmiş olan ölçek ön uygulama yapıldıktan sonra örneklem grubunu oluşturan kadınlara uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin faktör analizi, açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin, faktör yükleri dağılımının 0,593-0,899 arasında değiştiği orijinal formunda olduğu gibi üç boyutlu yapıyı koruduğu belirlenmiştir. DMÖ-R’ye ait maddelerin orijinal dilinde olduğu gibi üç alt boyutlu olarak faktör yüklerinin 0.593-0.899 arasında değiştiği ve Türkçe formunda da orijinal dilindeki yapıyı koruduğu bulunmuştur. Uyum indeksi değerleri, x2/SD değeri 2.06, RMSEA 0.070, CFI 0.95, SRMR 0.078, GFI 0.93, AGFI 0.89 ve NFI 0.92 bulunmuştur. İlgili uyum indeks değerleri sonucunda modelin bu hali ile uygun olduğuna karar verildi. On maddeli BSS-R’nin Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0.72, ölçeğin alt boyutlarının Cronbach alfa katsayıları 0.70 ve 0.78 arasında bulundu.
Sonuç: Türkçe’ye uyarlaması yapılan DMÖ-R’nin Türk kültürüne uygun, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Doğum memnuniyeti, Ölçek, Geçerlilik, Güvenilirlik, Hemşirelik

References

• 1- Erbil N, Marangoz YT, Şen A, Kılıç H. Measurement of patient satisfaction and experiences with nursing care in a maternity gynecology hospital. Turkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;19(3):122-30.
• 2- Polat A. Quality, satisfaction in health institutions and determination of satisfaction levels of inpatients: the case of Tavas state hospital. İstanbul: Beykent University Institute of Social Sciences.2016.
• 3- Goodman P, Mackey MC, Tavakoli AS. Factors related to childbirth satisfaction. J Adv Nurs.2004;46(2):212-219.
• 4- Pınar G, Pınar T. Satisfaction of women who gave birth with nurses/midwives on expectations related to empathic. Journal of Medical Research. 2009;7(3):132-140.
• 5- Karaçam Z, Akyüz EÖ. Supportive Care in Labor and The Rol of Midwife / Nurse Florence Nightingale Nursing Journal.2011;19(1):45-53.
• 6- Cones Ferrer MB, Canteras Jordana M, Ballesteros Meseguer C, Garcia CC, Roche MEM. Comparative study analysing women's childbirth satisfaction and obstetric outcomes across two different models of maternity care. BMJ Open 2016;26,6(8): e011362.
• 7- Çıtak Bilgin N, Ak B, Coşkuner Potur D, Ayhan F. Satisfaction with birth and affecting factors in women who gave birth. Arch Health Sci Res. 2018;5(3): 342-52.
• 8- Waldenström U, Hildingsso I, Rubertsson C, Radestad I. A negative birth experience: Prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth 2004;31(1):17-27.
• 9- Johansson C and Finnbogadottir H.First-time mothers’satisfaction with their birth experience-a cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2019;21:79,102540.
• 10- Rijnders M, Baston H, Schönbeck Y, van der Pal K, Prins M, Green J et al. Perinatal factors related to negative or positive recall of birth experience in women 3 years postpartum in the Netherlands. Birth 2008;35(2):107-116.
• 11- Ford S, Schofield T, Hope T. What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:589-602.
• 12- Rudman A, El‐Khouri B, Waldenström U. Women's satisfaction with intrapartum care–a pattern approach. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59:474-487.
• 13- Sözeri C. Effect of assessment of psychosocial health during pregnancy on determination of postpartum depression. İstanbul: Marmara University Institute of Health Sciences. 2011.
• 14- Chen CH, Wong SY,Chang MY .Women’s perceptions of helpful and unhelpful nursing behaviors during labor: A study in Taiwan. Birth 2001;28(3):180–185.
• 15- Fair CD, Morrison TE. The relationship between prenatal control, expectations, experienced control, and birth satisfaction among primiparous women. Midwifery 2012;28(1):39-44.
• 16- Britton JR. Global satisfaction with perinatal hospital care: stability and relationship to anxiety, depression, and stressful medical events. Am J Med Qual. 2006;21(3):200-205.
• 17- Güngör İ, Beji NK. Development and psychometric testing of the scales for measuring maternal satisfaction in a normal and cesarean birth. Midwifery 2012;28(3):347-357.
• 18- Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Development and psychometric properties of the birth satisfaction scale- revised (BSS-R). Midwifery 2014;30:610-619.
• 19- Şencan H. Reliability and Validity in Social and Behavioral Measurements. Seçkin Publishing, 2005, Ankara.
• 20- Gözüm S, Aksayan S. A Quide for transcultural adaptation of the scale. Turkish Journal of Research and Development in Nursing. 2002;4(1):9-14.
• 21- Gözüm S, Aksayan S. A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale II: psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison. Turkish Journal of Research and Development in Nursing. 2003;5:3–14.
• 22- Ercan İ, Kan, İ. Reliability and validity in the scales. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Medicine, 2004;30(3):211-16.
• 23- Tavşancıl E. Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS. 2010. p. 5-200.
• 24- Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika,1965;52;591-611.
• 25- Harrington D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis, New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 22-30.
• 26- Çapık C. Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies. J Nursology. 2014;17(3):196-205.
• 27- Yurdugül H. Using content validity indexes for content validity in scale development studies. XIV. National Educational Sciences Congress, September 28-30; Denizli- Türkiye: 2005
• 28- Güneş BN. The Study of Turkish Validity and Reliability of the Braden Q Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk in Pediatric Patients. Ankara: Gazi University Institute of Health Sciences.2012.
• 29- Burns N, Grove SK. The Practice of Nursing Research: Apprasial, Synthesis and Generation of Evidence (6th ed.) 2009. St.Louis, Missouri: Saunders & Elsevier.
• 30- Büyüköztürk S. Some Statistics Used in the Validity and Reliability of Tests. Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences.16. Print, Ankara: Pegem Academy;2017. p. 167-182.
• 31- Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Multivariate Statistics SPSS and LİSREL Applications for Social Sciences. 2014.3. Print, Pegem A Publishing, Ankara.
• 32- Akgül A. Statistical Analysis Techniques in Medical Research, SPSS Applications. 2005.Emek Ofset, Istanbul.
• 33- Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 3 Nd Ed. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, London, 2010.p. 320-332.
• 34- Waltz CF, Strcikland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research, 4th Ed. Springer Publishing Company, New York, London, 2010.p. 3-11.
• 35- Wang J, Wang X. Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus: Methods and Applications, 1 nd ed. West Susex, John Wiley & Sons, 2012. p. 391-406.
• 36- Erdogan S, Nahcivan N, Esin NM. Research in Nursing. Process, Application and Critical. Istanbul Nobel Medicine Bookstores, 2014. p. 221-223.
• 37- Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. (7th Ed.), Wolters Kluwer and Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Philadelphia. 2010.
• 38- Peters GJY. The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. European Health Psychologist 2014;16(2):56–69.