Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Psikometrik Özellikleri

Öz

Amaç: Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma metodolojik bir çalışmadır. Çalışmanın örneklemini Çocuk Yoğun Bakım Ünitelerinde yatan 120 çocuk oluşturmuştur. Veriler, Çocuk Tanıtım Formu ve Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Öl- çeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde ROC analizi, bilinen grup karşılaştırması (t testi), fisher ki kare testi, kappa uyum testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Türkçe ölçeğin, dil geçerliği çeviri ve geri çeviri, içerik geçerliği uzman görüşleri tekniği ile sağlanmıştır. Ölçeğin ROC analizi ile belirlenen kesme noktası 19.5 olup, bu noktada ölçeğin duyarlılığı 0,976 ve özgüllüğü 0,350 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçek eğri altı alanı 0,617-0,800 arasında bulunmuş olup, ölçeğin kabul edilebilir düzeyde ayrıma sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Basınç ülseri gelişen hastalarla gelişmeyen hastaların, Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Ölçeği puan ortalamaları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmış olup, ölçeğin riskli olan ve olmayan hastaları anlamlı şekilde ayırabildiği sonucuna varılmıştır (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Basınç ülseri, ölçek, geçerlik ve güvenirlik

The Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Form of the Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to adapt the Glamorgan Pediatric Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale into Turkish and examine validity and reliability of the Scale. Material and Methods: The sample of the study consist of 120 children who are admitted to pediatric intensive care unit. Data for the study were collected by using Children Introduction Form and Glamorgan Pediatric Risk Assessment Scale. ROC analysis, known group comparison (t test), fisher chi-square test, kappa compliance test were used in the data analysis. Results: Breakpoint of the scale was determined by using ROC analysis and was found to be 19.5. At that point, sensitivity of the scale was calculated as 0.976 and specificity of the scale was calculated as 0.350. The area below the scale curve was found between 0.617 and 0.800. It was determined that the scale has an acceptable margin level. A statistically significant variation between mean Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment scale scores of patients who did and didn’t develop pressure ulcers and it was concluded that the scale was able to divide patients with and without risk in a statistically significant way. It was found that Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale was able to identify 100% of patient who develop pressure ulcers as high risk patients in a statistically significant way. The compliance between the observers was determined as 100%. Conclusion: The Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale is a valid and reliable tool which can be used in studies with Turkish samples.

Keywords

• Pressure ulcer, scale, validity and reliability

References

1. pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a sys
2. tematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2011:1-12. 5. Baldwin M. Incidence and prevalence of pres
3. sure ulcers in children. Adv Skin Wound Care
4. ;15:121-24. 6. Groeneveld A, Anderson M, Allen S, Bress
5. mer S, Golberg M, Magee B. et al. The preva
6. lence of pressure ulcers in a tertiary care
7. pediatric and adult hospital. J Wound Ostomy
8. Continence Nurs 2004;31(3):108-20. 7. McLane KM, Bookout K, McCord S, McCain

9. J, Jefferson LS. The 2003 national pediatric
10. pressure ulcer and skin breakdown preva
11. lence survey: a multisite study. J Wound Os
12. tomy Continence Nurs 2004;31(4):168- 78. 8. Noonan C, Quigley S, Curley MA. Skin in
13. tegrity hospitalized infants and children: a
14. prevalence survey. J Pediatr Nurs 2006;21(6): 45-53. 9. Schlüer AB, Cignacco E, Müller M, Halfens
15. RJ. The prevalence of pressure ulcers in four
16. paediatric institutions. J Clin Nurs 2009;
17. (23):3244-52. 10. Suddaby CE, Barnett S, Facteau L. Skin
18. breakdown in acut care pediatrics. Pediatr
19. Nurs 2005;31(2):132-38. 11. Curley MA, Quigley SM, Lin M. Pressure ul
20. cers in pediatric intensive care: incidence and
21. associated factors. Pediatr Crit Care Med
22. ;4(3):284-90. 12. Fujii K, Sugama J, Okuwa M, Sanada H, Mi
23. zokami Y. Incidence and risk factors of pres
24. sure ulcers in seven neonatal intensive care
25. units in Japan: a multisite prospective cohort
26. study. Int Wound J 2010;7(5):323-28. 13. Schindler CA, Mikhailov TA, Fischer K,
27. Lukasiewicz G, Kuhn EM, Duncan L. Skin in
28. tegrity in critically ill and injured children. Am J
29. Crit Care 2007;16(6):568-74. 14. Pediatric Affinity Group. How to guide: prevent pressure ulcers - pediatric supplement. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/How toGuidePreventPressureUlcersPediatricSup- plement.aspx Erişim tarihi: 03.07.2015 15. Willock J, Baharestani MM, Anthony D. The development of the Glamorgan paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scale. J
30. Wound Care 2009;18(1):17-21. 16. Kottner J, Hauss A, Schlüer AB, Dassen T.
31. Validation and clinical impact of paediatric
32. pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a sys
33. tematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2013; 50(6): 807-18. 17. Willock J, Baharestani M, Anthony D. A risk
34. assessment scale for pressure ulcers in chil
35. dren. Nursing Times 2007;103(14):32-3.
36. http://www.nursingtimes.net/a-risk
37. assessment-scale-for-pressure-ulcers-in
38. children/201783.article Erişim tarihi: 03.07. 2015 18. Willock J, Baharestani MM, Anthony D. The development of the Glamorgan paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scale. Journal of Children’s and Young People’s Nursing
39. ; 1(5): 211-218. 19. Anthony D, Willock J, Baharestani M. A com
40. parison of Braden Q, Garvin and Glamorgan
41. risk assessment scales in paediatrics. Journal
42. of Tissue Viability 2010:98-105. 20. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel
43. and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory
44. Panel, 2009. Prevention and Treatment of
45. Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guide
46. line. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory
47. Panel,Washington, DC. http://guideline.
48. gov/content.aspx?id= 25139 Erişim tarihi: 03.07.2015 21. Dirican A. Tanı testi performanslarının değer
49. lendirilmesi ve kıyaslanması. Cerrahpaşa J
50. Med 2001;32(1):25-30. 22. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: Psikometrik özellik- ler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. HEMAR-G
51. ;5(1):3-14. 23. Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde
52. güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin
53. Yayıncılık; 2005. 24. Karasar N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi:
54. Kavramlar, İlkeler ve Teknikler. 21. bs.
55. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2010. 25. Kottner J, Kenzler M, Wilborn D. Interrater
56. agreement, reliability and validity of the Glam
57. organ Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assess
58. ment Scale. J Clin Nurs 2014;23(7-8):1165-9. 26. Kottner J, Schröer F, Tannen A. Evaluation of
59. the Glamorgan Scale in a paediatric intensive
60. care unit: agreement and reliability. Pflege
61. ;25(6):459-67. 27. Willock J. Interrater reliability of the Glamor
62. gan scale: overt and covert data. Br J Nurs 2013;22(20):8-9.