Hemşirelerin Alarm Yorgunluğu Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi

Year 2023, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 148 - 154, 06.06.2023

Ceren Kahraman , Hatice Başkale

https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.1117796

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma Hemşirelerin Alarm Yorgunluğu Ölçeği’nin psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek amacıyla yapılmıştır.
Materyal ve Metot: Metodolojik çalışmanın örneklemini yenidoğan ve çocuk yoğun bakımlarında çalışan toplam 142 hemşire oluşturmuştur. Ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerinin geçerlik analizinde dil eşdeğerliği, içerik ve yapı geçerliliği kullanılmıştır. Veriler açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, Cronbach alfa katsayısı, iki yarı tekniği ve madde-toplam korelasyonu kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Bir alt boyut ve dokuz maddeden oluşan Hemşirelerin Alarm Yorgunluğu Ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun açıklanan toplam varyansı %41 olarak belirlenmiştir. Toplam faktör yükü >0,30'dur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde, tüm model uyum indeksleri >0,90 ve yaklaşık hataların ortalama karekökü (RMSEA) <0,08'dir. İki yarı arasındaki korelasyon 0,71, Guttman ve Spearman-Brown katsayıları 0,83’tür. Cronbach alfa değeri 0,80 olarak bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Araştırmanın bulguları, ölçeğin Türkiye'de yenidoğan ve çocuk yoğun bakım ünitelerinde çalışan hemşirelerin alarm yorgunluğunu belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

geçerlilik, güvenirlik, Alarm yorgunluğu, Hemşire

Determining the Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Nurses’ Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the Nurses’ Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire.
Materials and Methods: In this methodological study, the sample consisted of 142 nurses working in neonatal and pediatric intensive care. In order to test the psychometric properties of the scale, language equivalence, content and construct validity were used for validity analysis. The data were evaluated using descriptive and confirmative factor analyses, Cronbach's alpha, split-half, and item-total score correlation.
Results: The total explained variance of the Turkish version of the Nurses' Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire consisting of a single sub-dimension and nine items was determined as 41%. The total factor loading was >0.30. In the confirmatory factor analysis, all the goodness of fit indexes were >0.90, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was <0.08. The correlation between the two halves was 0.71, and the Guttman split-half and Spearman-Brown coefficients were 0.83. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale was found to be 0.80.
Conclusion: The study’s findings suggest that the scale is a valid and reliable tool in determining the alarm fatigue of nurses working in newborn and pediatric intensive care units in Türkiye.

Keywords

nurses, reliability, validity, Alarm fatigue

References

• 1. Lewandowska K, Weisbrot M, Cieloszyk A, Medrzycka-Dabrowska W, Krupa S, Ozga D. Impact of alarm fatigue on the work of nurses in an intensive care environment-A systematic review. Int J Environ Res. 2020;17(8409):1-14. doi:10.3390/ijerph17228409
• 2. Bitan Y, Meyer J, Shinar D, Zmora E. Nurses’ reactions to alarms in a neonatal intensive care unit. Cogn Technol Work. 2004;6:239–246
• 3. Andrade-Méndez B, Arias-Torres DO, Gómez-Tovar LO. Alarm fatigue in the intensive care unit: Relevance and response time. Enferm Intensiva. 2020;31(3):147-153. doi:10.1016/j.enfie.2019.11.001.
• 4. Dai J, Sun Z, He X. False alarm rejection for ICU ECG Monitoring. In: Liu C, Li J, eds. Feature Engineering and Computational Intelligence in ECG Monitoring. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd; 2020: 215-226. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-3824-7_12.
• 5. Bonafide CP, Lin R, Zander M, et al. Association between exposure to nonactionable physiologic monitor alarms and response time in a children’s hospital. J Hosp Med. 2017;10(6):345-351. doi:10.1002/jhm.2331.
• 6. Simpson KR, Lyndon A. False alarms and overmonitoring: Major factors in alarm fatigue among labor nurses. J Nurs Care Qual. 2019;34(1):66-72. doi:10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000335.
• 7. Torabizadeh C, Yousefinya A, Zand F, Rakhshan M, Fararooei M. A nurses’ alarm fatigue questionnaire: Development and psychometric properties. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;31:1305-1312. doi:10.1007/s10877-016-9958-x.
• 8. The Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert. Medical device alarm safety in hospitals. 50(8), 2013. sea_50_alarms_4_26_16.pdf (jointcommission.org). Accessed March 23, 2023.
• 9. ECRI Institute. Top 10 Health Technology Hazards for 2020. ecri-top-10-technology-hazards-2020.pdf (wordpress.com). Accessed April 3, 2022. 10. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. 6th ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2018.
• 11. Roebianto A, Savitri SA, Aulia I, Suciyana A, Mubarokah L. Content validity: Definition and procedure of content validation in psychological research. TPM. 2023;30(1):5-18. doi:10.4473/TPM30.1.1
• 12. Ramlaul A, Chironda G, Brysiewicz P. Alarms in the ICU: A study investigating how ICU nurses respond to clinical alarms for patient safety in a selected hospital in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. SAJCC. 2021;37(2):57-62. doi:10.7196/SAJCC.2021.v37i2.469
• 13. Yu D, Obuseh M, DeLaurentis P. Quantifying the impact of infusion alerts and alarms on nursing workflows: A retrospective analysis. Appl Clin Inform. 2021;12(03):528-538. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1730031
• 14. Dursun Ergezen F, Kol E. Nurses’ responses to monitor alarms in an intensive care unit: An observational study. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 2020;59:102845. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102845
• 15. Bourji H, Sabbah H, Al’Jamil A, et al. Evaluating the alarm fatigue and its associated factors among clinicians in critical care units. EJ-CLINICMED. 2020;1(1):1-10. doi:10.24018/clinicmed.2020.1.1.8
• 16. Akturan S, Güner Y, Tuncel B, Üçüncüoğlu M, Kurt T. Evaluation of alarm fatigue of nurses working in the COVID-19 intensive care service: A mixed methods study. J Clin Nurs. 2022;31:2654–2662. doi:10.1111/jocn.16190
• 17. Carpenter S. Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Commun. Methods Meas. 2018;12(1):25-44. doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
• 18. George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. 16th ed. NY: Routledge; 2020.
• 19. Jie L, Jing L, Xiahong H, Yuping X, Tingting R, Hao L. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of ICU Nurses' Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire. Chinese Nursing Management. 2021;21(4):522-525.
• 20. Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JL. Making sense of factor analysis. The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003.
• 21. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. 22nd ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2016.
• 22. van Zyl LE, ten Klooster PM. Exploratory structural equation modeling: Practical guidelines and tutorial with a convenient online tool for Mplus. Front. Psychiatry. 2022;12:795672. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.795672
• 23. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 7th Ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2019.
• 24. Whittaker TA, Schumacker RE. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. 5th ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2022.
• 25. Sureshchandar GS. Quality 4.0 – a measurement model using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2023;40(1):280-303. doi:10.1108/IJQRM-06-2021-0172
• 26. Alan H, Tiryaki Şen H, Bilgin O, Polat Ş. Alarm fatigue questionnaire: Turkish validity and reliability study. IGUSABDER. 2021;15:436-445. doi:10.38079/igusabder.981451