GEBELİKTE VÜCUT ALGISI ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmada, gebelere uygulanacak şekilde Gebelikte Vücut Algısı Ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye uyarlaması ve gebelerdeki psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Metodolojik nitelikte tasarlanan bu araştırma, toplam 508 sağlıklı gebe ile yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin kültürel adaptasyon süreci dil geçerliliği, kapsam geçerliliği ve pilot uygulama olarak 3 aşamada gerçekleştirildi. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini test etmek amacıyla Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizleri kullanıldı. Ölçeğin güvenirliği; cronbach’s α iç tutarlık kat sayısı, madde toplam korelasyonu, test-tekrar test analizi ve paralel form güvenirliği ile değerlendirildi. Yapılan Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi, Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi ile oluşturulan ölçeğin üç faktörlü yapısını desteklemektedir. Ölçek toplam ve alt boyutlarında cronbach’s α iç tutarlık kat sayısının 0.78 ile 0.88 arasında değiştiği saptandı. Ayrıca, ölçeğin madde toplam korelasyonu, test-tekrar test analizi ve paralel formlar güvenirliği yüksek korelasyona sahipti. Araştırmada Gebelikte Vücut Algısı Ölçeğinin Türk gebe kadınlardaki vücut algısı düzeyini değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Beden Imajı
• Gebelikte Vücut Algısı Ölçeği
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik

THE TURKISH VERSION OF BODY UNDERSTANDING MEASURE FOR PREGNANCY SCALE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Öz

The objective of this study was to adapt the Body Understanding Measure for Pregnancy Scale into the Turkish language and to examine the psychometric properties in pregnancy. The methodological study was conducted with 508 healthy pregnant women. Language validation, content validation, and pilot scheme are the three phases of cultural adaptation of the scale. The construct validity of the scale was analyzed using both Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses. The reliability of the scale was tested using parallel-form reliability, test-retest reliability, Cronbach's α coefficient of internal consistency, and item-total correlation. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted supports the three-factor structure of the scale that is constructed by Exploratory Factor Analysis. We determined Cronbach’s α coefficient of internal consistency to vary between 0.78 and 0.88 for the scale total and the subscales. Besides, there was a high correlation between the parallel-form reliability, test-retest reliability, and item-total correlation of the scale. The Turkish version of Body Understanding Measure for Pregnancy Scale is a validated and reliable tool designed to evaluate the body image concerns of Turkish pregnant women.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Body image
• Body Understanding Measure For Pregnancy Scale
• Reliability
• Validity

Kaynakça

1. Henriques A, Alves L, Alves E, et al. Social trajectory and body image satisfaction in childbearing women. Matern Child Health J 2015; 19(6):1237-1244.
2. Grogan S. Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and children (3rd ed). New York, NY: Routledge, 2017; pp 184-185.
3. Kirk E, Preston C. Development and validation of the Body Understanding Measure for Pregnancy Scale (BUMPs) and its role in antenatal attachment. Psychol assess 2019; 31(9):1092.
4. Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Skouteris H, Watson B, Hill B. Body image during pregnancy: an evaluation of the suitability of the body attitudes questionnaire. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12(1):91.
5. Watson B, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Broadbent J, Skouteris H. The meaning of body image experiences during the perinatal period: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. Body Image 2015; 14:102-113.
6. Fahami F, Amini-Abchuyeh M, Aghaei A. The relationship between psychological wellbeing and body image in pregnant women. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2018; 23(3):167-171.
7. Sun W, Chen D, Wang J, Liu N, Zhang W. Physical activity and body image dissatisfaction among pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Obstet & Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 229:38-44.
8. Meireles JFF, Neves CM, Carvalho PHBD, Ferreira MEC. Body image, eating attitudes, depressive symptoms, self-esteem and anxiety in pregnant women of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ciên Saúde Colet 2017; 22:437-445.

9. Derya YA, Gok HU, Ozsahin Z. Effects of demographic and obstetric variables with body image on sexual dysfunction in pregnancy: A cross‐sectional and comparative study. Int J Nurs Pract 2020; 26 (3):e12829.
10. Silveira ML, Ertel KA, Dole N, Chasan-Taber L. The role of body image in prenatal and postpartum depression: a critical review of the literature. Arch Womens Ment Health 2015; 18(3):409-421.
11. Nagl M, Jepsen L, Linde K, Kersting A. Measuring body image during pregnancy: psychometric properties and validity of a German translation of the Body Image in Pregnancy Scale (BIPS-G). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19(1):1-12.
12. Kiani-Sheikhabadi M, Beigi M, Mohebbi-Dehnavi Z. The relationship between perfectionism and body image with eating disorder in pregnancy. J Educ Health Prom 2019; 8:242.
13. Krisjanous J, Richard JE, Gazley A. The perfect little bump: does the media portrayal of pregnant celebrities influence prenatal attachment? Psychol Mark 2014; 31(9):758-773.
14. Tsuchiya S, Yasui M, Ohashi K. Assessing body dissatisfaction in Japanese women during the second trimester of pregnancy using a new figure rating scale. Nurs Health Sci 2019; 21(3):367-374.
15. Roomruangwong C, Kanchanatawan B, Sirivichayakul S, Maes M. High incidence of body image dissatisfaction in pregnancy and the postnatal period: Associations with depression, anxiety, body mass index and weight gain during pregnancy. Sex Reprod Healthc 2017; 13:103-109.
16. Watson B, Broadbent J, Skouteris H, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. A qualitative exploration of body image experiences of women progressing through pregnancy. Women Birth 2016; 29(1):72-79.
17. Erbil N. The Relationship between Sexual Function, Body Image and Body Mass Index among Pregnant Women. Int J Caring Sci 2019; 12(2):925.
18. Erkaya R, Karabulutlu O, Calik KY. The effect of maternal obesity on self-esteem and body image. Saud J Biol Sci 2018; 25(6):1079-1084.
19. Kartal B, Kızılırmak A, Zedelenmez A, Erdem E. Investigation of body perception in pregnant women according to physical changes in pregnancy. Çağdaş Tıp Dergisi 2018; 8(4):356-360.
20. Ucar T, Guney E, Cesur B, Yurtsal ZB. The scale for body image concerns during pregnancy: Development and validation. Perspect Psychiat Care 2018; 54(3):416-421.
21. Talmon A, Ginzburg K. “Who does this body belong to?” The development and psychometric evaluation of the Body Experience during Pregnancy Scale. Body Image 2018; 26:19-28.
22. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006; 34(6):806‐838.
23. Comrey AL, Lee HB. Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. In Comrey AL, Lee HB (eds), A First Course in Factor Analysis, vol. 2. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 1992; pp 240-262.
24. Hovardaoğlu S. Vücut algısı ölçeği. Psikiyatri, Psikoloji, Psikofarmakoloji Testler Özel Eki 1993; 1(1):26.
25. Secord PF, Jourard SM. The appraisal of body-cathexis: body cathexis and the self. J Consult Psychol 1953; 17(5):343-347.
26. Davis GC, Robinson MC. Principles and practice of nursing research, A times mirror compose. Ed. Talbot LA. Mosby St. Louis 1995; pp 373-390.
27. Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Handbook of health research methods: Investigation, measurement and analysis. UK: Open University Press, Bell and Bain Ltd McGraw-Hill Education, 2005.
28. Ozdamar K. Statistical Analysis with Software Packages (5th ed.) Kaan Press, Eskişehir 2004; pp 450-455.
29. Gozum S, Aksayan S. A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale II: psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison. Turkish Journal of Research and Development in Nursing 2003; 5(1):3-14.
30. Karagoz Y. SPSS ve AMOS 23 Uygulamalı İstatistiksel Analizler Kitabı. (1.bsk) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2016.
31. Harrington, D. Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
32. Secer I. Practical Data Analysis with Spss and Lisrel Software (Extended 2nd ed). Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara 2015; pp 221-224.
33. Kline P. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed). New York: The Guilford Press. 2011.
34. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed) New York, NY: The Guilford Press 2015.
35. Kenny D. Measuring model fit. http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm; Erişim Tarihi:18.02.2021
36. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthen B. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 1989; 105(3): 456-466.
37. Meydan CH, Şeşen,H, Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları (1.bsk) Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık, 2011.
38. Alpar R. Applied statistics and reliability-validity (3rd ed). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. 2014; pp 475-527.
39. Simsek OF. Introduction To Structural Equation Modeling: Basic principles and LISREL practices. Ankara: Ekinoks. 2007; pp 20-55.
40. Price PC, Jhangiani R, Chiang ICA. Research methods in psychology. (2nd Canadian Ed). BC Campus. 2015.
41. Satir, DG, Hazar S. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Body Understanding Measure for Pregnancy scale (BUMPs). Perspectives in Psych Care J 2022; 58(2):456-463.
42. Kader M, Naim-Shuchana S. Physical activity and exercise during pregnancy. Eur J Physiother 2014; 16(1):2-9.