TY  - JOUR
T1  - Hasta-Hekim Yönelim Ölçeğinin (HHYÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanması
TT  - Translation and validation of the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale in Turkey
AU  - Özdemir, Serdar
AU  - Edirne, Tamer
PY  - 2018
DA  - May
DO  - 10.25282/ted.350121
JF  - Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası
JO  - TED
PB  - Tıp Eğitimini Geliştirme Derneği
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1303-328X
SP  - 21
EP  - 32
VL  - 17
IS  - 51
LA  - tr
AB  - AmaçBu çalışmada orijinal ismi ThePatient–Practitioner Orientation Scale olan Hasta-Hekim Yönelim Ölçeğinin(HHYÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Buna göre ölçeğin Türkçe formununorijinal İngilizce form ile dilsel eşdeğerlik taşıdığı, benzer geçerlik,güvenirlik ve faktör yapısına sahip olduğu hipotezleri sınanmıştır. YöntemAraştırmada öncelikle 18 maddeden oluşanölçek çeviri-geri çeviri yöntemi ile Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. Çevirinin dilseleşdeğerliği iki dilli grup deseni kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Bunun içinİngilizce bilen tıp fakültesi öğrencilerine (n=71) test-tekrar test yönteminegöre uygulanan ölçeğin kaynak ve hedef dildeki maddeleri arasındakiilişkiler Spearman korelasyon katsayısı ile incelenmiştir. Geçerlik vegüvenirlik analizleri için Türkçe ölçek iki farklı tıp fakültesindeki 1. sınıföğrencilerine (n=379) uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğinyapı geçerliğini ortaya koymak amacıyla Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi veDoğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılmıştır. Güvenirlik analizi Cronbach Alfa içtutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanarak yapılmıştır.SonuçlarHasta Hekim İlişkisine YönelikTutum Ölçeğinde yer alan maddelerin orijinal maddeler ile 0.41 ile 0.71arasında (p<0,01) anlamlı dilsel eşdeğerlik gösterdikleri saptanmıştır. İlkaçımlayıcı faktör analizinde faktörlerin içerisine oturmayan ve faktörağırlıkları 0,25’den düşük olarak saptanan dört madde dışarıda bırakılmıştır.Geriye kalan 14 madde ile yapılan ikinci analizin sonucuna göre Türkçemaddelerin orijinal ölçekte yer alan maddeler ile benzer yük aldıklarıgörülmüştür. Ölçeğin toplam Cronbach Alfa değeri 0.80, paylaşım alt boyutu içinbu değer 0,732; bakım alt boyutu için ise 0,653 hesaplanmış ve kabul edilebilir düzeydebulunmuştur.TartışmaBu sonuçlara göre Hasta-HekimYönelim Ölçeğinin Türkiye’deki araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek, dilsel eşdeğerliğe sahip,geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.
KW  - Hasta hekim ilişkisi
KW  - hasta merkezli yaklaşım
KW  - geçerlik
N2  - Background: The Patient-PractitionerOrientation Scale is designed to compare a patient-oriented approach with adoctor-oriented approach among medical personnel.Aims: The aim of this study is to adapt the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scaleto Turkish. The hypotheses that the Turkish version shows linguisticequivalence and comparable validity, reliability and factor load were tested. Study design: This descriptive correlational study describes the translation process andexploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Patient-PractitionerOrientation Scale.Methods: The original scale was first translated into Turkish using translation-backtranslation method. Linguistic equivalence was tested by bilingual groupsdesign through conducting the scale to English speaking first term medicalstudents and comparing original and target scale items by Spearman correlationcoefficient. Medicalstudents (n=379) from two medical schools in Turkey were enrolled in the studyto complete the Turkish scale in order to test validity and reliability. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses werecompleted to evaluate structure validity. Cronbach Alpha values were definedfor internal consistency. Results: Items in the Turkish version compared to theoriginal scale items showed a relation between 0.41 and 0.71 (p<0,01) verifyinglinguistic equivalence. Primary exploratory factor analysis revealed that fouritems did not achieve a loading factor of 0.30 and these items wereexcluded. Afterfactor analysis and tests of internal consistency, a shortened version with 14items was formed (PPOS - T14).Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.800 for the entire sample group, 0.732for the sharing domain and 0.653 for the caring domain and were found adequate.Conclusions: The Turkish formof the PPOS showed linguistic equivalence, satisfactory validity and acceptablereliability. PPOS - T14 is a reliable tool toevaluate patient-centeredness between medical students in Turkish-speakingcountries.
CR  - 1.	Balint E. The possibilities of patient-centered medicine. J R Coll Gen Pract 1969;17(82):269-76. 
2.	Hudon C, Fortin M, Haggerty JL, Lambert M, Poitras ME. Measuring patients’ perceptions of patient-centered care: A systematic review of tools for family medicine. Ann Fam Med 2011;9:155-64.
3.	Stewart M. Towards a global definition of patient-centred care. Br Med J 2001;322:444–5.  
4.	Robinson JH, Callister LLC, Berry JA, Dearing KA. Patient-centered care and adherence: Definitions and applications to improve outcomes. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2008;20:600-7.
5.	Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000;49(9):796-804. 
6.	Levinson W, Lesser CS, Epstein RM. Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Affair (Millwood) 2010;29:1310–8.
7.	Krupat E, Hiam CM, Fleming MZ, Freeman P. Patient-centeredness and its correlates among first year medical students. Int J Psychiatry Med 1999;29(3):347-56.
8.	Moore M. What does Patient-centred communication mean in Nepal? Med Educ 2008;42:18-26.
9.	Tsimitou Z, Kerasidou O, Efstathiou N, Papaharitou S, Hatzimouratidis K, Hatzichristou D. Medical students’ attitudes toward patient-centered care: A longitudinal survey. Med Educ 2007;41:146-53.
10.	Madhan B, Rajpurohit AS, Gayathri H. Attitudes of postgraduate orthodontic students in India towards patient-centred care. J Dent Educ 2011;75(1):107-14. 
11.	Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJA. Comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 2005;28:212–32.
12.	Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.  
13.	Hambleton RK, Merenda PF, Spielberger CD. Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. New Jersey, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Publishers, 2005. 
14.	Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black W. Multivariate data analysis, 6th ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2006.
15.	Howell DC. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Florence: Cengage Learning Services, 2009.
16.	Coakes SJ, Steed LG. SPSS Analysis without Anguish: Version 14.0 for Windows. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd., 2007.
17.	Kahn JH. Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: principles, advances, and applications. Couns Psychol 2006;34: 684–718.
18.	Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. R. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 2008;6(1):53–60. (cited 12 May 2016) Available from: http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=buschmanart 
19.	Weston R, Gore PA. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns Psychol 2006;34:684–718.
20.	Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60(1):34-42.
21.	Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measure. Spine 2005;25:3186–3191.
22.	George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2003.
23.	McKinley RK, Manku Scott T, Hastings AM, French DP, Baker R. Reliability and validity of a new measure of patient satisfaction with out of hours primary medical care in the United Kingdom: development of a patient questionnaire. BMJ 1997;314:193–8.
24.	Bosma H, Marmot MG, Hemingway H, Nicholson AC, Brunner E, Stansfield SA. Low job control and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort) study. BMJ 1997; 314:558–65.
25.	Pereira CM, Amaral CF, Ribeiro MM, Paro HB, Pinto RM, Reis LE, Silva CH, Krupat E. Cross-cultural validation of the Patient–Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS). Patient Educ Couns 2013;91:37-43.
26.	Mudiyanse RM, Pallegama RW, Jayalath T, Dharmaratne S, Krupat E. Translation and validation of Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale in Sri-Lanka. Education for Health 2015;28(1):35-40.
27.	Kiessling C, Fabry G, Rudolf Fischer M, Steiner C, Langewitz WA. German translation and construct validation of the Patient-Provider-Orientation Scale (PPOS-D12). Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2014;64:122-7. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1341455.
28.	Green SB, Lissitz RW, Mulaik SA. Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educ Psychol Meas. 1977;37:827–38.
29.	Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha: an examination of theory and applications.J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:98–104.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.350121
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/468363
ER  -