The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Pet Attitude Scale

Year 2022, Volume: 23 Issue: 1, 94 - 100, 30.03.2022

Rahşan Çevik Akyıl , Seyhan Çitlik Sarıtaş Ayşegül Kahraman Musa Şamil Akyıl , Filiz Abacıgil

Abstract

Objective: This study tests the Turkish validity and reliability of the Pet Attitude Scale (PAS) and adapt it to Turkish society.
Materials and Methods: The study population consisted of students in the departments of health at a university in Western Turkey. No sampling method was used; and the entire population was included in the study. Data were collected using a questionnaire on the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and the PAS, which consisted of 18 items scored between 1 and 7 under three factors: love and interaction, pets in the home, and joy of pet ownership. The construct validity of the scale was evaluated by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The reliability of the PAS was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient, the item-total correlation, and the test-retest analysis.
Results: The scale factors’ Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient ranged between 0.45 and 0.92, the items’ factor loads ranged between 0.51 and 0.85, and the total item correlation coefficients ranged between 0.31 and 0.77. The CFA supported the three-factor structure yielded by the EFA and showed good fit indices.
Conclusion: The scale was reliable for Turkish society compared to the original PAS. The factor structure resembled the results of a reevaluation of PAS. Thus, it can be suggested that the PAS is valid and reliable for application in Turkish society.

Keywords

Pet attitude scale, Turkish version, validity, reliability

References

• 1. Matuszek S. Animal-facilitated therapy in various patient populations: systematic literature review. Holist Nurs Pract 2010; 24: 187-203.
• 2. Beetz A, Uvnäs-Moberg K, Julius H, Kotrschal K. Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: the possible role of oxytocin. Front Psychol 2012; 3: 234.
• 3. Marcus DA, Bernstein CD, Constantin JM, Kunkel FA, Breuer P, Hanlon RB. Impact of animal-assisted therapy for outpatients with fibromyalgia. Pain Med 2013; 14: 43-51.
• 4. Bert F, Gualano MR, Camussi E, Pieve G, Voglino G, Siliquini R. Animal assisted intervention: A systematic review of benefits and risks. Eur J Integr Med 2016; 8: 695-706.
• 5. Straede CM, Gates GR. Psychological health in a population of Australian cat owners. Anthrozoös 1993; 6: 30-42.
• 6. Serpell J. Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behaviour. J R Soc Med 1991; 84: 717-20.
• 7. Odendaal JS. Animal-assisted therapy - magic or medicine? J Psychosom Res 2000; 49: 275-80.
• 8. Parello CAK, Wesley Y, Campbell M. Examining pet attitude in relationship to loneliness and parenthood motivation in pet-owning adults. Health 2014; 6: 598-606.
• 9. Jacobson KC, Chang L. Associations Between Pet Ownership and Attitudes Toward Pets With Youth Socioemotional Outcomes. Front Psychol 2018; 9: 2304.
• 10. Amiot CE, Bastian B. Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychol Bull 2015; 141: 6-47.
• 11. Krause-Parello CA, Kolassa J. Pet Therapy: Enhancing Social and Cardiovascular Wellness in Community Dwelling Older Adults. J Community Health Nurs 2016; 33: 1-10.
• 12. Min M, Zaw CC. A review on animal-assisted therapy and activities for healthcare and teaching of children. Journal of Education and Social Scinces 2016; 5: 40-6.
• 13. Guthrie MF, Marshall PH, Hendrick SS, Hendrick C, Logue E. Human love styles and attitudes toward pets. Anthrozoös 2018; 31: 41-60.
• 14. Özen A, Özen R, Yaşar A, Armutak A, Bayrak S, Gezman A, Şeker İ. Attitudes of Turkish veterinary students and educators towards the moral status of animals and species rating. Kafkas Üniv Vet Fak Derg 2009; 15: 111-8.
• 15. Doğan Ö, Özkul T, Özen A. The attitudes and views of Firat and Uludag University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine students on the subject of dog psychology. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg 2011; 58: 85-91.
• 16. Sıddıq AB, Erdem Ç, Şanlı Ş. The Scopes of Anthrozoology, the Study of Human-Animal Relationships in Turkey. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 2018; 7: 805-26.
• 17. Wilson CC, Netting FE, New JC. The pet attitude inventory. Anthrozoös 1987; 1: 76-84.
• 18. Johnsons TP, Garrity TF, Stallones L. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington attachment to pets scale (LAPS). Anthrozoös 1992; 5: 160-75.
• 19. Staats S, Miller D, Carnot MJ, Rada K, Turnes J. The Miller-Rada commitment to pets scale. Anthrozoös 1996; 9: 88-94.
• 20. Lago D, Kafer R, Delenay M, Connell C. Assessment of favorable attitudes toward pets: Development and preliminary validation of self-report pet relationship scales. Anthrozoös 1988; 1: 240-54.
• 21. Wilson CC, Netting FE. The status of instrument development in the human-animal interaction field. Anthrozoös 2012; 25: 11-55.
• 22. Fiocco AJ, Hunse AM. The Buffer Effect of Therapy Dog Exposure on Stress Reactivity in Undergraduate Students. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14: 707.
• 23. Dixon-Preylo B, Arikawa H. Comparison of vegetarians and nonvegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös 2008; 21: 387-95.
• 24. Williams J, Lawrence A, Muldoon J. Children and their pets: exploring the relationships between pet ownership, pet attitudes, attachments to pets, and emphaty. Education and Health 2009; 28: 12-5.
• 25. Al-Fayez G, Awadalla A, Templer DI, Arikawa H. Companion animal attitude and its family pattern in Kuwait. Society and Animals 2003; 11: 17-28.
• 26. Karaçam Z. Adaptation of Scales to Turkish. Ebelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2019; 2: 28-37.
• 27. Römpke AK. Adaptation of the Pet Attitude Scale to German. Society & Animals 2019; 27: 11-24.
• 28. ITC. Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second Edition). Indernational Journal of Testing 2018; 18: 101-34. Doi: 10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166
• 29. Templer DI, Arikawa H. The pet attitude scale. In Blazina C, Boyraz G, Shen-Miller D (Eds.), The psychology of the human-animal bond: A resource for clinicians and researchers. New York: NY, Springer; 2011. p. 335-59.
• 30. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment 1994; 6: 284-90.
• 31. Şencan H. Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık; 2005.
• 32. Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. St Louis: MO: Saunders 2009.
• 33. Streiner DL, Kottner J. Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing. J Adv Nurs 2014; 70: 1970-9.
• 34. Klem L. Reading and understanding MORE multivariate statistics. Structural equation modeling, Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, Eds., Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association 2000.
• 35. Alpar R. Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Yöntemler (3. Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2011.
• 36. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
• 37. Akgül A. Tıbbi Araştırmalarda İstatiksel Analiz Teknikleri-SPSS Uygulamaları, Ankara: Emek Ofset Ltd. Şti.; 2005.