The Perception of Obstetric Violence in Students: Validity and Reliability Study (Percov- S-Turkish)

Öz

Obstetric violence is a serious problem that violates women's right to health care with dignity and respect. This study aimed to adapt the “Perception of Obstetric Violence in Students” scale into Turkish. The sample consisted of 254 fourth-year midwifery students from three universities. Data were collected using a personal information form and the scale between 05.05.21 and 18.06.21. Content validity and language equivalency were evaluated. Expert opinions were sought to evaluate the content validity of the scale. Afterward, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were examined. Pearson correlation, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, dependent-groups t-test, and confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine the data. Six items were removed from the scale due to cross-loading. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient was 0.924. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed a five-factor structure with 27 items, explaining 67% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93 for the total scale and ranged from 0.69 to 0.90 for the subscales. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed to check the construct validity of the scale. The results showed that root mean square error of approximation, normed fit index, and χ2/df were 0.08, 0.94, 0.81, and 2.62, respectively. Test-retest analysis was performed to assess invariance over time. The results significantly fit the Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient (r=0.848, p<0.001). The results indicate that the scale is a valid and reliable measure for the Turkish population. The scale contains no reverse-coded items, and a higher score on a five-point Likert scale indicates higher awareness and sensitivity to obstetric violence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Midwifery
• obstetrics
• perception
• students
• violence

Öğrencilerde Obstetrik Şiddet Algısı Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması (Percov-S-Türkçe)

Öz

Obstetrik şiddet, kadının onur ve saygı çerçevesinde sağlık hizmeti alma hakkını ihlal eden ciddi bir sorundur. Bu çalışma, "Perception Scale of Obstetric Violence in Students" ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın evrenini, üç farklı üniversitenin ebelik bölümünde eğitim alan 254 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Veriler 05.05.21-18.06.21 tarihleri arasında tanıtıcı bilgi formu ve ölçek kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Dil eşdeğerliği ve içerik geçerliliği değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin içerik geçerliliğini değerlendirmek için uzman görüşleri alınmıştır. Ardından, test-yeniden test güvenilirliği, iç tutarlılık ve yapı geçerliliği incelenmiştir. Verileri incelemek için Pearson korelasyonu, Bartlett küresellik testi, bağımlı gruplar t testi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Çapraz yükleme nedeniyle ölçekten altı madde çıkarılmıştır. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin katsayısı 0.924 olarak bulunmuştur. Perception Scale of Obstetric Violence in Students ölçeğinin açıklanan toplam varyans değeri 27 maddenin oluşturduğu 5 faktörlü yapı için %67 hesaplanmıştır. Toplam ölçek için Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0,93 idi ve alt ölçekler için 0,69 ile 0,90 arasında değişiyordu. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliğini kontrol etmek için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılmış, hataların ortalama karekökü, normlaştırılmış uyum indeksi, karşılaştırmalı uyum indeksi ve χ²/df değerlerinin sırasıyla 0,08, 0,94, 0,81 ve 2,62 olduğu bulunmuştur. Zaman içindeki değişmezliği değerlendirmek için test-yeniden test analizi yapılmış, Pearson korelasyonu istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur (r=0,848, p<0,001). Sonuçlar, ölçeğin Türk toplumu için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçekte ters kodlanan madde bulunmamaktadır ve beşli Likert tipi ölçekte puan artıkça, obstetrik şiddetine yönelik farkındalık ve duyarlılığın yüksek olduğunu ifade etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ebelik
• doğum
• algı
• öğrenciler
• şiddet

Kaynakça

1. Kılci S, Demirel OB, Saruhan A. A violation of women’s rights: obstetric violence. Arch Med Rev J. 2020;29(2):122-128. doi:10.17827/aktd.535574
2. Mena-Tudela D, González-Chordá VM, Soriano-Vidal FJ, et al. Changes in health sciences students' perception of obstetric violence after an educational intervention. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;88:104364. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104364
3. Yaylacı N. “Obstetric violence” from a human rights perspective. Turk Bar Assoc Rev. 2022;159:123-153
4. World Health Organization. The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.
5. Perrotte V, Chaudhary A, Goodman A. “At least your baby is healthy”: obstetric violence or disrespect and abuse in childbirth occurrence worldwide: a literature review. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;10:1544-1562. doi:10.4236/ojog.2020.10110139
6. Annborn A, Finnbogadóttir HR. Obstetric violence: a qualitative interview study. Midwifery. 2022;105:103212. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2021.1032
7. Lansky S, Souza KV, Peixoto ERM, et al. Obstetric violence: influences of the senses of birth exhibition in pregnant women childbirth experience. Cien Saude Colet. 2019;24:2811-2824. doi:10.1590/1413-81232018248.30102017
8. Mena-Tudela D, Iglesias-Casás S, González-Chordá VM, Cervera-Gasch Á, Andreu-Pejó L, Valero-Chilleron MJ. Obstetric violence in Spain (part II): interventionism and medicalization during birth. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):199. doi:10.3390/ijerph1801019

9. Mihret MS. Obstetric violence and its associated factors among postnatal women in a specialized comprehensive hospital, Amhara region, northwest Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):600. doi:10.1186/s13104-019-4614-4
10. Mena-Tudela D, Iglesias-Casás S, González-Chordá VM, Cervera-Gasch Á, Andreu-Pejó L, Valero-Chilleron MJ. Obstetric violence in Spain (Part I): women’s perception and interterritorial differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):7726. doi:10.3390/ijerph17217726
11. Castro R, Frías SM. Obstetric violence in Mexico: results from a 2016 national household survey. Violence Against Women. 2020;26(6-7):555-572. doi:10.1177/1077801219836732
12. Zaigham M, Andersson O. Maternal and perinatal outcomes with COVID-19: a systematic review of 108 pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(7):823-829. doi:10.1111/aogs.13867
13. Sadler M, Leiva G, Olza I. COVID-19 as a risk factor for obstetric violence. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(1):1785379. doi:10.1080/26410397.2020.1785379
14. Jardim DMB, Modena CM. Obstetric violence in the daily routine of care and its characteristics. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2018;26:e3069. doi:10.1590/1518-8345.2450.3069
15. Martínez-Galiano JM, Rodríguez-Almagro J, Rubio-Álvarez A, Ortiz-Esquinas I, Ballesta-Castillejos A, Hernández-Martínez A. Obstetric violence from a midwife perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(6):4930. doi:10.3390/ijerph20064930
16. Leal SYP, de Azevedo Lima VL, da Silva AF, Soares PDFL, Santana L, Pereira Á. Perception of nurse midwives on obstetric violence. Cogitare Enferm. 2018;23(2):e52473. doi:10.5380/ce.v23i1.52473
17. Thompson SM, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Low LK, de Vries R. A powerful midwifery vision: Dutch student midwives’ educational needs as advocates of physiological childbirth. Women Birth. 2019;32(6):e576-e583. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2018.12.010
18. Mena-Tudela D, Roman P, González-Chordá VM, Rodriguez-Arrastia M, Gutiérrez-Cascajares L, Ropero-Padilla C. Experiences with obstetric violence among healthcare professionals and students in Spain: A constructivist grounded theory study. Women Birth. 2023;36(2):e219-e226. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2022.07.169
19. Rodríguez Mir J, Martínez Gandolfi A. La violencia obstétrica: una práctica invisibilizada en la atención médica en España. Gac Sanit. 2022;35:211-212. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.06.019
20. Küçükkaya B. The relationship between nursing students’ perceptions of obstetric violence and their attitudes toward violence: a cross-sectional study. Bandirma Onyedi Eylul Univ J Health Sci Res. 2025;7(1):209-221. doi:10.46413/boneyusbad.1525879
21. Esin NM. Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN, eds. Research Process, Practice and Critical in Nursing. 4th ed. Ankara: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri; 2020:193-233.
22. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale II: psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison. HEMAR-G. 2003;5(1):3-14.
23. Mena-Tudela D, Cervera-Gasch A, Alemany-Anchel MJ, Andreu-Pejó L, González-Chordá VM. Design and validation of the PercOV-S questionnaire for measuring perceived obstetric violence in nursing, midwifery and medical students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8022. doi:10.3390/ijerph17218022
24. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
25. Davis L. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194-197. doi:10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
26. Kline P. An Easy Guide To Factor Analysis. Routledge;1994.
27. Büyüköztürk Ş. Manual of Data Analysis for Social Sciences: Statistical Research Design, SPSS Applications and Interpretation. Ankara, Türkiye: Pegem Akademi; 2023.
28. Tezbaşaran AA. Likert Type Scale Preparation Guide. Ankara, Türkiye: Turkish Psychological Association Publications; 2008.
29. Harrington D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Oxford University Press; 2009.
30. Güvendir MA, Özkan YÖ. Item removal strategies conducted in exploratory factor analysis: a comparative study. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2022;9(1):165-180. doi:10.21449/ijate.827950
31. Tavşancıl E. Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis With SPSS. Nobel Medicine; 2014.
32. Büyüköztürk Ş. Handbook of Data Analysis: Statistics, Research Design, SPSS Applications and Interpretation. 9th ed. Ankara, Türkiye: Pegem Akademi; 2008:31-37,167-182
33. Şencan H, Fidan Y. Normality assumption in the exploratory factor analysis with Likert scale data and testing its effect on factor extraction. Bus Manag Stud Int J. 2020;8(1):640-687. doi:10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1395
34. İlhan M, Çetin B. Comparing the analysis results of the structural equation models (SEM) conducted using LISREL and AMOS. J Meas Eval Educ Psychol. 2014;5(2):26-42.
35. Kalaycı Ş. SPSS Applied Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Asil Publishing Distribution;2016.
36. Sümer N. Structural equation modeling: basic concepts and applications. Turkish Psychological Articles. 2000;3(6):49-74.
37. Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn & Bacon; 2001.
38. Finney SJ, Pieper SL, Barron KE. Examining the psychometric properties of the achievement goal questionnaire in a general academic context. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64(2):365-382.
39. Ozabacı N. The Turkish adaptation of the Relationship Quality Scale: a validity and reliability study. Educ Sci. 2011;36(162):159-167.
40. Akin NK, Aşçi FH. The Evaluation of the tripartite efficacy beliefs in physical education class: a scale adaptation study. Turkiye Klin J Sports Sci. 2021;13(2):203-212.
41. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press; 1998.
42. Fırat M, Kanbay Y, Gökmen BD, Utkan M, Okanlı A. Investigating the factors affecting depression by using structural equation modeling. Galician Med J. 2021;28(1):E202111. doi:10.21802/gmj.2021.1.1
43. Kim Y, Lee S, Cho Y, Kim M. Analysis of causal relationships for nutrient removal of activated sludge process based on structural equation modeling approaches. Appl Sci. 2019;9(7):1398. doi:10.3390/app9071398
44. Erkuş A. Ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama çalışmalarında karşılaşılan sorunlar. Turk Psikol Bult. 2007;13(40):17-25.
45. Akgül A, Çevik O. Statistical Analysis Techniques: Business Management Applications in SPSS. Ankara, Türkiye: Emek Ofset; 2003.