The Self-Perceived Burden Scale: A Validation Study in Turkish Patients with Spinal Cord Injury

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 3, 18 - 27, 30.12.2022

Ümmühan Aktürk , Semra Aktürk , Behice Erci

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the scale by adapting “Self-Load Perception” into Turkish for patients with spinal cord injury.

Metarials and Methods: The research was carried out on 125 patients with spinal cord injury diagnosis between July 2016 and May 2017. Information form and self-load perception scale were used in the research. Research data were tested with Cronbach's alpha (α), single factor analysis, Bartlett and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin analysis.

Results and Conclusion: In the present study, the KMO measure of the Self-perceived Burden Scale was determined to be 0.89 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be 2.919. The Cronbach α reliability coefficient of the SPBS was determined to be 0.96. As a result of these analyses, one factor had an Eigen value of 1 and higher, which explains 60.89% of the total variance found. It has been determined that the single-factor version of the SPBS is a valid and reliable scale for Turkey and can be used to evaluate the self-perceived burden levels of patients who have a spinal cord injury.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Spinal cord injury, self-perceived burden scale, nursing, validity, Omurilik yaralanması, kendi kendine algılanan yük, hemşirelik, geçerlilik

Kendini Yük Algılama Ölçeği: Omurilik Yaralanması Olan Türk Hastalarda Bir Validasyon Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Spinal Kord yaralanması olan hastalarda için “Kendini Yük Algılama Ölçeği”nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve geçerlilik çalışmasının yapılmaı ile ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Materyal ve Metod: Araştırma Temmuz 2016 - Mayıs 2017 tarihlerinde 125 omirilik yaralanması tanısı olan hasta üzerinde gerçekleştirildi. Araştırmada bilgi formu ve Kendini yük algılama ölçeği kullanıldı. Araştırma verileri Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı (α), tek faktörlü analiz, Bartlett testi ve Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) analizleri kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular ve Sonuç: Bu çalışmada Kendini Yük Algılama Ölçeğinin KMO ölçüsü 0.89, Bartlett'in küresellik testi ise 2.919 olarak bulunmuştur. Kendinden algılanan yük ölçeğinin Cronbach α güvenirlik katsayısı 0.96 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu analizler sonucunda bir faktörün öz değeri 1 ve üzerinde olup, bulunan toplam varyansın %60.89'unu açıklamaktadır. Kendini Yük Algılama Ölçeğinin tek faktörlü versiyonunun Türkçe geçerli bir ölçek olduğu ve omurilik yaralanması olan hastaların kendi kendine algıladıkları yük düzeylerini değerlendirmek için kullanılabileceği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Omurilik yaralanması, kendi kendine algılanan yük, hemşirelik, geçerlilik

Kaynakça

• Akgül, A. (2003). Statistical analysis techniques in medical research SPSS practices (3rd ed.). Emek Ofset Ltd.Sti: Ankara.
• Arechabala, M. C., Catoni, M. I., Barrios, S., & Palma, E. (2012). Spanish validation of the self-perception of burden of care scale. Acta Paul Enferm., 25(1), 140-145.
• Barutçu, C. D., & Mert, H. (2017). The psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the self-perceived burden scale. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 10(1), 30-36.
• Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2005). The practice of nursing research conduct, critique, and utilization (5th ed.) Tokyo: Elsevier/Saunders.
• Celik, B., Gultekin, O., Beydogan, A., & Caglar, N. (2007). Domain-specific quality of life assessment in spinal cord injured patients. Int J Rehabil Res, 30, 97-101.
• Cheatham, L. P. (2012). Effects of Internet use on well-being among adults with physical disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 7, 181-188.
• Çimen, S. (2003). 15-18 Development of the risk group of risk behaviors in the age group of young people. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Istanbul University Institute of Health Sciences Nursing Department, İstanbul.
• Cousineau, N., McDowell, I., Steve, H., & Hebert, P. (2003). Measuring chronic patients’ feelings of being a burden to their caregivers: Development and preliminary validation of a scale. Medical Care, 41(1), 110-118.
• Erefe, I. (2002). Qualification of data collection tools in nursing research, (12th ed.). Istanbul: Odak Ofset.
• Esin, N. M. (2014). Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools (1st ed.). S. Erdoğan, N. Nahcivan, & N. M. Esin (Eds.). Istanbul: Nobel Tip Publishing House.
• Furlan, J. C., & Bracken, M. B. (2010). Is age a key determinant of mortality and neurological outcome after acute traumatic spinal cord injury? Neurobiol Aging, 31, 434-446.
• Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2002). Guide for the adaptation of intercultural scale II: Psychometric properties and intercultural comparison. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing, 4(2), 9-20.
• Khan, S. M., Phadke, K., Singh, P. K., & Jain, S. (2017). The role of nursing staff in spinal cord injured patients. Journal of Perioperative and Critical Intensive Care Nursing, 3(1), 137-138. doi: 10.4172/2471-9870.1000137
• Lee, B. B., Cripps, R. A., Fitzharris, M., & Wing P. C. (2014). The global map for traumatic spinal cord injury epidemiology: Update 2011, global incidence rate. Spinal Cord, 52, 110-116.
• Leroy, T., Fournier, E., Penel, N., & Christophe, V. (2016). Crossed views of burden and emotional distress of cancer patients and family caregivers during palliative care. Psycho-Oncology, 25(11), 1278-1285.
• Libert, Y., Borghgraef, C., Beguin, Y., Delvaux, N., Devos, M., Doyen, C., Dubruille, S., Etienne, A. M., & Lienard, A. (2017). Factors associated with self-perceived burden to the primary caregiver in older patients with hematologic malignancies: An exploratory study. Psycho-Oncology, 26(1):118-124. doi: 10.1002/pon.4108
• Mayo Clinic (2014). Spinal cord injury. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/spinal-cord-injury/basics/causes/con-20023837
• Oekia, M., Mogami, T., & Hagino, H. (2011). Self-perceived burden in patients with cancer: Scale development and descriptive study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 16, 145-152.
• Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample size. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153-161.
• Ren, H., Liu, C., Li, J., Yang, R., Ma, F., & Zhang, M. (2014). Self-perceived burden in the young and middle-aged in patients with stroke: A cross-sectional survey. Rehabilitation Nursing, 41(2), 101-11. doi: 10.1002/rnj.193
• Savaşır, I., & Şahin, N. H. (1997). Assessment in cognitive behavioral therapies: Frequently used scales. Ankara: Turkish Psychological Association Publications.
• Singh, A., Tetreault, L., Kalsi-Ryan, S., Nouri, A., & Fehlings M. G. (2014). Global prevalence and incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury. Clin Epidemiol, 6, 309-31. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S68889
• Şencan, H. (2005). Reliability and validity in the social and behavioral measurements [in Turkish]. Ankara: Outstanding Publishing.
• Tavşancil, E. (2002). Attitude measurement and data analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Yayin Distribution.
• Unalan, H., Celik, B., Sahin, A., Caglar, N., Esen, S., & Karamehmetoğlu, S. S. (2007). Quality of life after spinal cord injury: The comparison of the SF-36 health survey and its spinal cord injury-modified version in assessing the health status of people with spinal cord injury. Neurosurg Q, 17, 175-179.
• Worldometers. (2020). Turkey population (2022). Retrieved from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/turkey-population/