Development Reliability and Validity of the Self-Reflection Scale for Health Sciences Students

Öz

Objective: This study was conducted as a methodological study to develop a measurement tool to determine the self-reflection characteristics of health sciences students. Methods: The development stages of the Self-Reflection Scale for Health Sciences Students (SrS for HSS), are Creation of the Item Pool, Surface Validity, Content Validity, Pilot Study, Construct Validity and Criterion-Related Validation, Reliability Analyses. Self-reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS) was used in concurrent validity. Results: In this study, firstly, an item pool was created by utilizing the literature and the content validity of the scale draft was ensured. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was 0.948; x2=6278.978, df=253; p<0.001 in Barlett Sphericity test. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) showed that the SrS for HSS has a two sub-dimensional structure with 23 items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and fit index values (CMIN/DF=2.518, CFI=0.923, TLI=0.913, RMSEA=0.068, SRMR=0.047) were interpreted as "acceptable". All correlations between SrS for HSS and SRIS subscales were positive and significant. Corrected item-total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.53-0.83 for Reflection in and on Action and 0.45-0.66 for Reflection for Action, and Cronbach's Alpha values were 0.93 for Reflection in and on Action and 0.85 for Reflection for Action. Conclusion: In this study, "SrS for HSS" was developed to determine the self-reflection characteristics of health sciences students and the scale was found to be valid and reliable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Health Science
• Health Science Students
• Scale Development
• Self-Reflection

Sağlık Bilimleri Öğrencileri için Öz-Düşünüm Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi Güvenilirliği ve Geçerliliği

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sağlık bilimleri alanında öğrenim gören öğrencilerin öz-düşünüm özelliklerini belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçme aracı geliştirmek amacıyla metodolojik türde yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Sağlık Bilimleri Öğrencileri için Öz-Düşünüm Ölçeği (SB3Ö); Madde Havuzunun Oluşturulması, Yüzeysel Geçerlilik, İçerik Geçerliliği, Pilot Çalışma, Yapı Geçerliliği ve Ölçüte bağlı Geçerlilik, Güvenirlik Analizleri aşamaları ile geliştirilmiştir. Eş zamanlı geçerlilikte Kendini Yansıtma ve İçgörü Ölçeği (KYİÖ) kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Bu çalışmada öncelikle literatürden yararlanılarak madde havuzu oluşturulmuş ve ölçek taslağının içerik geçerliliği sağlanmıştır. Barlett Sphericity testinde Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) 0.948; x2=6278.978, df=253; p<0.001 bulunmuştur. Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi ölçeğin 23 maddeden oluşan iki alt boyutlu bir yapıya sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve uyum indeksi değerleri (CMIN/DF=2.518, CFI=0.923, TLI=0.913, RMSEA=0.068, SRMR=0,047) "kabul edilebilir" olarak yorumlanmıştır. SB3Ö ile KYİÖ alt ölçekleri arasındaki tüm korelasyonlar pozitif ve anlamlıdır. Madde-toplam puan korelasyon katsayıları Eylem İçinde ve Eylem Üzerine Yansıtma için 0.53-0.83 aralığında, Eylem İçin Yansıtma için 0.45-0.66 aralığında, Cronbach's Alpha değerleri Eylem İçinde ve Eylem Üzerine Yansıtma için 0.93, Eylem İçin Yansıtma için 0.85 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Çalışma bulgularına dayanarak, öğrencilerin duygusal hemşirelik becerilerini geliştirmek için benzer çalışmalar yürütmek amacıyla hemşirelik eğitim müfredatına şefkat ve bilinçli farkındalık uygulamaları üzerine derslerin entegre edilmesi önerilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sağlık Bilimi
• Sağlık Bilimi Öğrencileri
• Ölçek Geliştirme
• Öz-Düşünüm

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy B. (2016). Occupational risk perception in nursing students: a scale development study. (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Trakya University Institute of Health Sciences Department of Nursing Master's Program, Edirne.
2. Aksu G, Eser MT, Güzeller CO. (2017). Structural equation model applications with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. (1st ed.). Ankara: Detay Publishing.
3. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin J B. (2014). Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 176. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2
4. Aronson L, Niehaus B, Hill-Sakurai L, Lai C, O'Sullivan PS. (2012). A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in year 3 medical students. Medical Education, 46(8), 807–814. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x
5. Aşkun D, Cetin F. (2017). Turkish version of self-reflection and insight scale: A preliminary study for validity and reliability of the constructs. Psychological Studies, 62(1), 21-34.
6. Aukes LC, Geertsma J, Cohen-Schotanus J, Zwierstra RP, Slaets JP. (2007). The development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education. Medical Teacher, 29(2-3), 177–182. doi: 10.1080/01421590701299272
7. Balaman U. (2023). Conversation analytic language teacher education in digital spaces. Zürich: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
8. Banner SE, Rice K, Schutte N, Cosh SM, Rock AJ. (2023). Reliability and validity of the self-reflection and insight scale for psychologists and the development and validation of the revised short version. Clinical Psychology & Ppsychotherapy, 31(1), e2932. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2932

9. Bass J, Sidebotham M, Sweet L, Creedy DK. (2022). Development of a tool to measure holistic reflection in midwifery students and midwives. Women and Birth: Journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 35(5), e502–e511. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2021.10.001
10. Bayat B. (2014). Measurement, Scales and “Likert” Scale Establishment Techniques in Applied Social Science Research. Gazi University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 16(3), 1-24.
11. Büyüköztürk Ş. (2011). Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
12. Çapık C. (2014). Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences, 17(3), 196-205.
13. Çolakoğlu ÖM, Büyükekşi C. (2014). Evaluation of factors effecting exploratory factor analysis process. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 58-64.
14. Davis LL. (1992). “Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts”. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194-197.
15. DeVellis RF. (2003). Scale development theory and applications (Second Edition). SAGE Publication, Inc.
16. DeVellis RF. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme kuram ve uygulamalar (T. Totan, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım
17. Ekin S, Balaman U. (2023). Reflection-in-action practices of pre-service language teachers in a trilateral virtual exchange setting. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, (59), 227-242.
18. Elaldı Ş. (2015). Overview of the concept of Self-Reflection. Turkish Studies (Electronic), 10(7), 381-394.
19. Evci N, Aylar F. (2017). Use of confirmatory factor analysis in scale development studies. The Journal of Social Science, 4(10), 389-412.
20. Gathu C. (2022). Facilitators and barriers of reflective learning in postgraduate medical education: A narrative review. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 9, 23821205221096106. doi: 10.1177/23821205221096106
21. Grant AM, Franklin J, Langford P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(8), 821-835.
22. Ishino M. (2018). Micro-longitudinal conversation analysis in examining co-teachers’ reflection-in-action. System, 78, 130–147. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.07.013
23. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. (2014). Basic principles in scale development studies. World of Medical Education, 13(40), 39-49.
24. Killion JP, Todnem GR. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14–16.
25. Kline RB. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (4th ed.), New York: Guilford Press.
26. Koçak H, Demirdel E. (2023). Content validity in the scale development study for shoulder. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Health Sciences, 14(2), 219-226.
27. Naeimi L, Abbaszadeh M, Mirzazadeh A, Sima AR, Nedjat S, Mortaz Hejri S. (2019). Validating self-reflection and insight scale to measure readiness for self-regulated learning. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8, 150. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_101_19
28. Nguyen QD, Fernandez N, Karsenti T, Charlin B. (2014). What is reflection? A conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five-component model. Medical Education, 48(12), 1176–1189. doi: 10.1111/medu.12583
29. Orçan F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: which one to use first? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 413-421.
30. Özdamar K. (2013). Statistical data analysis with package programs (9th ed.). Ankara: Nisan Bookstore.
31. Rogers SL, Priddis LE, Michels N, Tieman M, Van Winkle LJ. (2019). Applications of the reflective practice questionnaire in medical education. BMC Medical Education, 19, 1-11. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1481-6
32. Silvia PJ, Eddington KM, Harper KL, Kwapil TR. (2023). Self-reflection, insight, and mood disorder symptoms: Evaluating the short form of the self-reflection and insight scale with clinical interviews and self-reports. Current Psychology, 42(16), 13906-13912.
33. Şimşek ÖF. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling, basic principles and LISREL applications. Ankara: Ekinoks.
34. Taherdoost H, Sahibuddin S, Jalaliyoon N. (2022). Exploratory factor analysis; concepts and theory. Advances in Applied and Pure Mathematics, 27, 375-382.
35. Yeşilyurt S, Çapraz C. (2018). A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(1), 251-264.
36. Yurdugül H. (2005). Using content validity ındices for content validity in scale development studies. XIV. National educational sciences congress book, 1, 771-774.