Japanese disaster nursing readiness evaluation index: Turkish adaptation validity and reliability study

Abstract

Objective: Disaster is a global problem all over the world, and it is essential to measure the readiness of nurses, who play a major role in disaster response, with a valid and reliable tool. This study was conducted to adapt the Japanese Disaster Nursing Readiness Evaluation Index into Turkish and to analyze its validity and reliability.

Methods: A total of 202 nurses were reached in this methodological study. The reliability parameters of the scale were examined with Cronbach Alpha and split-half. In addition, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed for the construct validity of the scale and 27% sub-item analysis was performed for item discrimination.

Results: According to Confirmatory Factor Analysis, the structural equation model, indicating its associated with 31 items and the six-factor structure of the scale. The factor loading values of all items were between 0.450 and 0.920. The alpha values obtained from the subscsles of the scala ranged between 0.771 and 0.883, and the overall alpha value was calculated as 0.905.

Conclusions: Based on the findings of the study, it was concluded that the Japanese Disaster Nursing Preparedness Assessment Index is valid and reliable for the Turkish society.

Keywords

• Disaster management
• disaster nursing
• Japanese disaster nursing readiness evaluation index
• self-assessment scale
• Turkey

References

1. 1. Altun F. [Economic and Social Impacts of Disasters: An Assessment of the Example of Turkey]. Sosyal Çalışma Dergisi. 2018;2(1):1-15. [Article in Turkish]
2. 2. Utkucu M, Uzuncha F, Durmuş H, Nalbant S, Sert S. The 2023 Pazarcık (Mw= 7.8) and Elbistan (Mw= 7.6), Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in the Southeast Türkiye. Sakarya University, Disaster Management Application and Research Center. Sakarya. 2023.
3. 3. Civaner M, Vatansever K, Balcıoğlu H, Yavuz CI, Sarıkaya Ö. [Education for Healthcare in Disasters: an Imperative for Undergraduate Medical Education]. Balkan Med J. 2011;28(3):344-350. doi: 10.5174/tutfd.2010.03529.1. [Article in Turkish]
4. 4. Yin H, He H, Arbon P, Zhu J, Tan J, Zhang L. Optimal qualifications, staffing and scope of practice for first responder nurses in disaster. J Clin Nurs. 2011;21(1-2):264-271. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03790.x.
5. 5. Bektaş Akpınar N, Aşkın Ceran M. [Current Approaches About Disasters and Role and Responsibilities of Disaster Nurse]. Paramedik ve Acil Sağlık Hizmetleri Dergisi. 2020;1(1):28-40. [Article in Turkish]
6. 6. Korkmaz E, Hacidursunoglu Erbas D, Azizoglu H, Ilbey Koc B, Eti Aslan F. [Can a Nurse in an Earthquake Help in a Disaster? Experiences on the 2023 Pazarcık Earthquake]. Kocaeli Med J 2023;12(3):395-401. doi: 10.5505/ktd.2023.04207. [Article in Turkish]
7. 7. Wynd C. A proposed model for military disaster nursing. Online J Issues Nurs. 2006;11(3):5.
8. 8. Kulig JC, Penz K, Karunanayake C, MacLeod MLP, Jahner S, Andrews ME. Experiences of rural and remote nurses assisting with disasters. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2017;20(2):98-106. doi: 10.1016/j.aenj.2017.04.003.

9. 9. Yan YE, Turale S, Stone T, Petrini M. Disaster nursing skills, knowledge and attitudes required in earthquake relief: Implications for nursing education. Int Nurs Rev. 2015;62(3):351-9. doi: 10.1111/inr.12175.
10. 10. Maeda T, Kotera S, Matsuda N, Huebner CA. Developing a scale to measure Japanese nurses' individual readiness for deployment to disasters. Nurs Health Sci. 2018;20(3):346-354. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12572.
11. 11. Karasar N. ed., Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. 39. Baskı, Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. 2024.
12. 12. Tavşancıl E. ed., Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. 6. Baskı, Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. 2019.
13. 13. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. [Basic Principles of Scale Development]. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2014;40:39-49. doi: 10.25282/ted.228738. [Article in Turkish]
14. 14. Esin MN. Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları & veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN. eds., Hemşirelikte Araştırma: Süreç Uygulama ve Kritik. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri. 2014. p. 193-232.
15. 15. Ghanei Gheshlagh R, Barzanji A, Amini F, Zahednezhad H. Psychometric properties of the Farsi version of the Disaster Nursing Readiness Evaluation Index (F-DNREI). BMC Emerg Med. 2024;24(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s12873-024-01067-x.
16. 16. Carpenter S. Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers. Commun Methods Meas. 2017;12(1):25-44. doi: 10.1080/19312 458.2017.1396583.
17. 17. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu SY. [Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Fit Indices: Review]. Türkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2013;33(1):210-223. doi: 10.5336/medsci.2011-26747. [Article in Turkish]
18. 18. Koçer AT, Akpek A, Vural A, et al. Public health challenges after the February 6 earthquakes: A comprehensive review of immediate and long-term impacts in Türkiye. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2024;114:104925.
19. 19. Alpar R. ed., Uygulamalı İstatistikler ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik: SSPS de Çözümleme Adımları ile Birlikte. 7. Baskı. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. 2022.
20. 20. Baykul Y. ed., Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme: Klasik Test Teorisi ve Uygulaması. 7. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. 2024.
21. 21. Field A. ed., Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed., London: Sage Publications Ltd. 2009.