TURKISH VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE POUND SATISFACTION SCALE IN STROKE PATIENTS UNDERGOING REHABILITATION

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the Turkish validity and reliability of the Pound Satisfaction Scale (PSS). Methods: For the adaptation of the PSS to Turkish (PSS-Tr), the translation and back-translation process was carried out by following the international guidelines. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to measure structural validity. The relationship between PSS-Tr and the Patient Satisfaction Scale in Physiotherapy (PSSP) and the SF-36 was assessed for construct validity. Convergent validity was evaluated computing by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Composite reliability (CR) for internal consistency of the PSS-Tr and Bland-Altman plot and test-retest reliability analysis for temporal consistency were used. Results: The study included 130 stroke patients. The fit index values of the CFA showed that the structural validity of the PSS-Tr was appropriate (χ2/sd=1.779, RMSEA=0.075, GFI=0.911, AGFI=0.853, CFI=0.955, NFI=0.905). A high correlation was found between the PSS-Tr total score and the PSSP (p=0.001, r=0.672). A moderate correlation was found between the hospital satisfaction sub-dimension of PSS-Tr, and the sub-dimensions of SF-36 (p=0.001, r=0.484-0.609), while a low correlation was found between the home satisfaction sub-dimension of the PSS-Tr and the physical functioning (p=0.002, r=0.266) and physical role (p=0.035, r=0.180) sub-dimensions of SF-36. And also the PSS-Tr was found to have good internal (Cronbach alpha= 0.895, CR=0.94) and temporal consistency (ICC = 0.976). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Pound Satisfaction Scale (PSS-Tr) is reliable and valid. The PSS-Tr may be useful for clinicians and researchers in assessing satisfaction with rehabilitation in stroke patients.

Keywords

• Patient Satisfaction
• Rehabilitation
• Stroke

REHABİLİTASYON HİZMETİ ALAN İNMELİ HASTALARDA POUND MEMNUNİYET ÖLÇEĞİ TÜRKÇE GEÇERLİLİK VE GÜVENİLİRLİĞİ

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Pound Memnuniyet Ölçeği (PMÖ)’nin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini araştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: PMÖ'nün Türkçeye uyarlanması (PMÖ-Tr) için çeviri süreci uluslararası yönergelere göre yapıldı. Yapısal geçerlilik, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile gerçekleştirildi. PMÖ ile Fizyoterapide Hasta Memnuniyet Ölçeği (FHMÖ) ve SF-36 ölçekleri arasındaki ilişki yapı geçerliliği açısından değerlendirildi. Yakınsak geçerlilik, Ortalama Açıklanan Varyans değerleri hesaplanarak değerlendirildi. PMÖ-Tr’nin iç tutarlılığı; Cronbach's alpha katsayısı, birleşik güvenilirlik ve Bland Altman grafiği ile değerlendirildi. Zamansal tutarlılık ise test-tekrar test yöntemi ile değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar: Bu çalışmaya 130 inme hastası dâhil edildi. DFA kapsamındaki uyum değerlerine göre PMÖ-Tr’in yapı geçerliliği açısından uygun bulundu (χ2/sd=1,779; RMSEA=0,075; GFI=0,911, AGFI=0,853; CFI=0,955; NFI=0,905). PMÖ-Tr toplam skoru ile FHMÖ arasında güçlü bir korelasyon saptandı (p=0,001; r=0,672). SF-36’un alt boyutları ile PMÖ-Tr’in hastane memnuniyeti arasında orta düzeyde bir korelasyon saptanırken (p=0,001; r=0,484-0,609), PMÖ-Tr’in ev memnuniyeti ile SF-36’un fiziksel fonksiyon (p=0,002; r=0,266) ve fiziksel rol güçlükleri (p=0,035; r=0,180) alt boyutları arasında zayıf bir korelasyon bulundu. Ayrıca PMÖ-Tr'nin iyi bir iç (Cronbach alpha= 0,895; CR=0,94) ve zamansal tutarlılığı (ICC= 0,976) olduğu belirlendi. Tartışma: Pound Memnuniyet Ölçeği'nin Türkçe versiyonu (PMÖ-Tr) güvenilir ve geçerlidir. PMÖ-Tr, inmeli hastalarda rehabilitasyon ile ilgili memnuniyet düzeyinin değerlendirilmesinde klinisyenler ve araştırmacılar için yararlı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hasta Memnuniyeti
• İnme
• Rehabilitasyon

References

1. Feigin VL, Brainin M, Norrving B, Martins S, Sacco RL, Hacke W, Fisher M, Pandian J, Lindsay P. World Stroke Organization (WSO): Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2022. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(1):18-29.
2. Silva SM, Corrêa JCF, Pereira GS, Corrêa FI. Social participation following a stroke: an assessment in accordance with the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(8):879-886.
3. Shrivastav SR, Ciol MA, Lee D. Perceived Community Participation and Associated Factors in People With Stroke. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2022;4(3):100210.
4. Batbaatar E, Dorjdagva J, Luvsannyam A, Savino MM, Amenta P. Determinants of patient satisfaction: a systematic review. Perspect Public Health. 2017;137(2):89-101.
5. Olaleye OA, Hamzat TK, Akinrinsade MA. Satisfaction of Nigerian stroke survivors with outpatient physiotherapy care. Physiother Theory Pract. 2017;33(1):41-51.
6. Graham B, Green A, James M, Katz J, Swiontkowski M. Measuring patient satisfaction in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(1):80-4.
7. Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi A. Patient satisfaction survey as a tool towards quality improvement. Oman Med J. 2014; 29: 3–7.
8. Alhashem AM, Alquraini H, Chowdhury RI. Factors influencing patient satisfaction in primary healthcare clinics in Kuwait. Int J Health Care Qual. 2011; 24: 249–62.

9. Hole E, Stubbs B, Roskell C, Soundy A. The patient's experience of the psychosocial process that influences identity following stroke rehabilitation: a metaethnography. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014; 28:349151.
10. Pound P, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Patients' satisfaction with stroke services. Clin Rehabil. 1994;8(1):7-17.
11. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-3191.
12. Lee SY, Song XY. Evaluation of the Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Approaches in Analyzing Structural Equation Models with Small Sample Sizes. Multivariate Behav Res. 2004;39(4):653-86.
13. Erden A, Topbaş M. Turkish validity and reliability of the patient satisfaction scale in physiotherapy for patients with musculoskeletal pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2019;32(2):197-203.
14. Pinar R. Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):259-64.
15. Sahoo M. Structural Equation Modeling: Threshold Criteria for Assessing Model Fit. In: Subudhi RN, Mishra S, eds. Methodological Issues Management Research: Advances, Challenges, and the Way Ahead. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2019: p. 269-276.
16. Asmelash AG, Kumar S. Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sustainability indicators. Tour Manag. 2019; 71: 67-83.
17. Obilor EI, Amadi EC. Test for significance of Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Int. J. Innov. Math. Stat. Energy Policy. 2018; 6(1): 11-23.
18. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48: 1273-1296.
19. Padilla MA, Divers J. A Comparison of Composite Reliability Estimators: Coefficient Omega Confidence Intervals in the Current Literature. Educ Psychol Meas. 2016;76(3):436-453.
20. Pang NTP, Kamu A, Hambali NLB, Mun HC, Kassim MA, Mohamed NH, et al. Malay version of the fear of COVID-19 scale: validity and reliability. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020;1-10.
21. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155–63.
22. Kaur P, Stoltzfus JC. Bland–Altman plot: A brief overview. Int J Acad Med. 2017; 3(1): 110-111.
23. Fernández-Abascal EG, Cabello R, Fernández-Berrocal P, Baron-Cohen S. Test-retest reliability of the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test: a one-year follow-up study. Mol Autism. 2013; 4:1-6.
24. Misyura M, Sukhai MA, Kulasignam V, Zhang T, Kamel-Reid S, Stockley TL. Improving validation methods for molecular diagnostics: application of Bland-Altman, Deming and simple linear regression analyses in assay comparison and evaluation for next-generation sequencing. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71(2): 117-124.
25. Cakı B, Celikkanat S, Gungormus Z. Turkish Validity and Reliability of the Evidence-based Practice Questionnaire for Nurses: A Methodological Study. J Pro Health Res. 2023; 36-48
26. Juaristi AA, Fores MF, Navarro EM, García SM, Saiz GV, Oller ED. Evaluation of patient satisfaction after stroke rehabilitation program. Validation study for the Spanish version of the Satisfaction Pound Scale. Med Clin (English Edition). 2016;147(10):441-443.
27. Liu S, Li G, Liu N, Hongwei W. The Impact of Patient Satisfaction on Patient Loyalty with the Mediating Effect of Patient Trust. Inquiry. 2021;58:469580211007221.
28. Barthels D, Das H. Current advances in ischemic stroke research and therapies. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2020;1866(4):165260.
29. Maaijwee NA, Rutten-Jacobs LC, Schaapsmeerders P, van Dijk EJ, de Leeuw FE. Ischaemic stroke in young adults: risk factors and long-term consequences. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(6):315-25.
30. Dworzynski K, Ritchie G, Playford ED. Stroke rehabilitation: long-term rehabilitation after stroke. Clinical Med. 2015; 15(5): 461.
31. Coroneos CJ, Lin YL, Sidey-Gibbons C, Asaad M, Chin B, Boukovalas S, et al. Correlation between financial toxicity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction in an insured population of breast cancer surgical patients: a single-institution retrospective study. J Am Coll Surg. 2021; 232(3): 253-263.
32. Iqbal MS, Iqbal Q, Iqbal S, Ashraf S. Hemodialysis as long term treatment: Patients satisfaction and its impact on quality of life. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(2):398-402.
33. Piskin BA, Akdeniz NS. How Can People with Disabilities Use the Outdoors? An Assessment Within the Framework of Disability Standards. Soc Indic Res. 2023; 167(1-3): 153-174.
34. Gungor S. A Research on Accessibility of Urban Parks by Disabled Person: The Case Study of Birlik Park, Konya-Turkey. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag. 2016: 496.
35. Ramalho-Pires de Almeida MÁ, Ábalos-Medina GM, Villaverde-Gutiérrez C, Gomes-de Lucena NM, Ferreira-Tomaz A, Perez-Marmol JM. Effects of an ergonomic program on the quality of life and work performance of university staff with physical disabilities: A clinical trial with three-month follow-up. Disabil Health J. 2019;12(1):58-64.
36. Torun N, Tengilimioglu D, Khan MM. Home health services in Turkey: A case study based on patient survey of home health care users in the province of Ankara. IJHMT. 2016; 1(2): 77-97.