Su dengesi ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Yıl 2021, , 120 - 128, 30.08.2021

Nilüfer Şen , Şule Aktaç

https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.859222

Cited By: 3

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Su Dengesi Ölçeği’ni (SDÖ) Türk toplumuna uyarlamak, validasyonu ve tekrar elde edilebilirliğini değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Metodolojik tipteki bu çalışmaya 301 sağlıklı yetişkin birey katılmıştır. İlk aşamada ölçeğin dil eşdeğerliği sağlanıp uzman görüşleri alınmış, ardından pilot uygulama yapılmıştır. Validasyan aşamasında 24 saatlik geriye dönük besin tüketim kaydı, idrar pH’ı ve idrar özgül ağırlığı kullanılmıştır. Güvenirliğin değerlendirilmesinde ölçek örnekleme 2 hafta ara ile ikinci kez uygulanmıştır.
Bulgular: Ölçek ile yirmi dört saatlik geriye dönük besin tüketim kaydı arasında güçlü düzeyde (r=0,771; p<0,001), idrar özgül ağırlığı ile negatif yönde, güçlü düzeyde (r=-0,630; p<0,001), idrar pH’sı ile pozitif yönde, güçlü düzeyde (r=0,604; p<0,001) anlamlı ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin test-tekrar test korelasyonu 0,98 olarak bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Su Dengesi Ölçeği, genel popülasyon için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçektir, SDÖ kullanılarak daha geniş popülasyonlar ve dehidrasyondan muzdarip grupların hidrasyon durumunun saptanabileceği çalışmalar yapılabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Su alımı, Su kaybı, Su dengesi, Geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik, Hidrasyon

Validity and reliability study for Turkish adaptation of water balance questionnaire

Öz

Aim: The aim is to adapt the Water Balance Questionnaire (WBQ), to Turkish society, assess its validation and reproducibility.
Materials and Methods: 301 healthy adult individuals were included in the methodological study. First, linguistic equivalence was ensured, and expert opinions were obtained before piloting. For validation, 24-hour dietary recall (24HR), urine pH and urine specific gravity (USG) were used. To assess reliability, it was administered twice with a two-week interval.
Results: The questionnaire had strong and significant correlation with 24HR (r=0.771; p<0.001), and strong, negative, and significant correlation with USG (r=-0.630; p<0.001), and strong, positive and significant correlation with urine pH (r=0.604; p<0.001). The test-retest correlation was 0.98.
Conclusion: The WBQ, is a valid and reliable questionnaire. In the future, studies can be conducted to determine the hydration status of larger populations and groups suffering from dehydration by using WBQ.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Water intake, Water loss, Water balance, Validity and reliability, Hydration.

Kaynakça

• Williamson MA, Snyder LM. Wallach’s interpretation of diagnostic tests. 9st ed. Lippincott W & Wilkins: Philadelphia, USA; 2011.
• Welch K. Fluid balance. Learning Disability Practice.2010;13(6):33-38.
• Strippoli GF, Craig JC, Rochtchina E, Flood VM, Wang JJ, Mitchell P. Fluid and nutrient intake and risk of chronic kidney disease. Nephrology (Carlton). 2011;16(3):326-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01415.x
• Popkin BM, D'Anci KE, Rosenberg IH. Water, hydration, and health. Nutr Rev. 2010;68(8):439-58. doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2010.00304.x.
• Pross N, Demazieres A, Girard N, et al. Influence of progressive fluid restriction on mood and physiological markers of dehydration in women. Br J Nutr. 2013;109:313–321. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512001080.
• Adan A. Cognitive performance and dehydration. J Am Coll Nutr. 2012;31(2):71-8. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2012.10720011.
• Watso JC, Farquhar WB. Hydration status and cardiovascular function. Nutrients. 2019;11(8):1866. doi: 10.3390/nu11081866.
• Malisova O, Bountziouka V, Panagiotakos DB, Zampelas A, Kapsokefalou M. The water balance questionnaire: design, reliability and validity of a questionnaire to evaluate water balance in the general population. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2012;63(2):138-44. doi: 10.3109/09637486.2011.607799.
• El-Sharkawy AM, Sahota O, Lobo DN. Acute and chronic effects of hydration status on health. Nutr Rev. 2015;73(2):97-109. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuv038.
• Nissensohn M, Ruano C, Serra-Majem L. Validation of beverage intake methods vs. hydration biomarkers; a short review. Nutr Hosp. 2013;28(6):1815-9.
• European Food Safety Association. Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on Dietary reference values for water. European Food Safety Association; 2010. Web site. http://www.efsa. europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1459.htm. Accessed on 2 December 2020.
• Armstrong LE, Johnson E. Water Intake, water balance, and the elusive daily water requirement. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):1928. doi: 10.3390/nu10121928.
• Baron S, Courbebaisse M, Lepicard EM, Friedlander G. Assessment of hydration status in a large population. Br J Nutr. 2015;113(1):147-58. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514003213.
• Gandy J, Le Bellego L, König J, Piekarz A, Tavoularis G, Tennant DR. Recording of fluid, beverage and water intakes at the population level in Europe. Br J Nutr. 2016;116(4):677-82. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516002336.
• Malisova O, Athanasatou A, Pepa A, et al. Water ıntake and hydration ındices in healthy european adults: The european hydration research study (EHRS). Nutrients. 2016;8(4):204. doi: 10.3390/nu8040204.
• Guelinckx I, Ferreira-Pêgo C, Moreno LA, et al. Intake of water and different beverages in adults across 13 countries. Eur J Nutr. 2015;2(2):45-55. doi: 10.1007/s00394-015-0952-8.
• Laja García AI, Samaniego Vaesken ML, Partearroyo T, Varela Moreiras G. Validated questionnaire to assess the hydration status in a healthy adult Spanish population: a cross sectional study. Nutr Hosp. 2019;36(4):875-883. doi: 10.20960/nh.02533.
• Demirkan E, Koz M, Kutlu M. The effects of dehydratıon on athletıc performance and monıtorıng hydratıon levels. Spormetre The Journal Of Physıcal Educatıon And Sport Scıences. 2010;8(3):81-92. doi: 10.1501/Sporm_0000000181
• Clarke LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Pyschol Assess.1995;7:309–319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.
• Cade J, Thompson R, Burley V, Warm D. Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires - a review. Public Health Nutr. 2002;(4):567-87. doi: 10.1079/PHN2001318.
• Uluğ E, Rakıcıoğlu N. Dietary Assessment of Micronutrients Intake.Bes Diy Derg. 2019;47(3):85-93.
• Capık C, Gozum S, Aksayan S. Intercultural Scale Adaptation Stages, Language and Culture Adaptation: Updated Guideline. FNJN Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing. 2018; 26: 199-210. doi: 10.26650/fnjn397481.
• Turkish Public Health Institution. Turkish Guidelines on Nutrition TÜBER-2015. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Health Publications;2016.
• Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(3):269-74.doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199706)20:3<269::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g
• Karabudak E, Koksal E. Validity and reliability of beverage intake questionnaire: evaluating hydration status. Nutr Hosp. 2016;33(5):577. doi: 10.20960/nh.577.
• Hedrick VE, Comber DL, Estabrooks PA, Savla J, Davy BM. The beverage intake questionnaire: determining initial validity and reliability. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(8):1227-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2010.05.005.
• Acemoğlu H, Aktürk Z. Reliability and validity in medical research. Dicle Medical Journal. 2012;39(2): 316-319. doi: 10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2012.02.01.