Hemşirelikte Doktora Eğitiminin Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik, Güvenilirliğinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2023, , 32 - 39, 30.04.2023

Ayla Bayık Temel , Aynur Uysal Toraman , Gülengül Mermer , Ebru Konal , Esin Ateş

https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1078501

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Hemşirelikte Doktora Eğitiminin Kalitesi (QNDE) ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini
belirlemektir. Ulusal bağlamda hemşirelikte doktora eğitiminin kalitesini inceleyen bir ölçüm aracının olmaması bu çalışmanın gerekçesidir.
Veriler 55 öğretim üyesi ve 225 doktora öğrencisinden toplanmıştır. Geçerlilik analizleri için açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri
kullanılmıştır. Güvenilirliği test etmek için Cronbach’s α güvenilirlik katsayısı, bağımsız-örnek t testi ve test-tekrar test analizi yapılmıştır.
Ölçeğin faktör yükleri 0.51-0.91 arasında değişmektedir. Uyum indeksleri değerleri kapsam geçerliliği için uygun kriterler arasında
bulunmuştur (χ2/df =3.02; RMSEA = 0.085; CFI = 0.87; NFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.79; TLI = 0.90; IFI =0.91; p < 0.001). Cronbach alfa
katsayısı 0.94’tür. Bu sonuçlar, Hemşirelik Doktora Eğitiminin Kalitesi ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu
göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geçerlilik, Güvenilirlik, Hemşire, Hemşirelik Doktora Eğitimi, Kalite

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Instrument of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Quality of Doctoral Education in Nursing
(QNDE) scale. The lack of a measurement tool examining the quality of doctoral education in nursing in a national context is the reason for
this study. Data were collected from 55 teaching staff and 225 doctorate students. Explanatory and confirmatory factor analyzes were used
for test validity. Cronbach’s α coefficient of reliability, independent-sample t test, and test-retest analysis were calculated to test Reliability.
The factor loads ranged between 0.51-0.91.The construct validity was good (χ2/df =3.02; RMSEA = 0.085; CFI = 0.87; NFI = 0.90; GFI
= 0.79; TLI = 0.90; IFI =0.91; p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha value of the scale was 0.94. The results of this study show that the Turkish
version of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education instrument is a valid and reliable tool.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Validation, Reliability, Nurses, Nursing doctoral education, Quality

Kaynakça

• Alpar, R. (2018). Applied Statistics with Examples from Sport, Health and Educational Sciences and Validity - Reliability. Detay Publishing.
• Arimoto, A., Gregg, M. F., Nagata, S., Miki, Y., & Murashima, S. (2012). Evaluation of doctoral nursing programs in Japan by faculty members and their educational and research activities. Nurse Education Today, 32(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.06.007
• Bahar, Z., Aydogdu N. G. (2019). Doctorate Programs in Nursing and Providing its Standardization. Journal of Public Health Nursing; 1(1), 54-63.
• Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., & Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process. The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 524-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481
• Beeber, A. S., Palmer, C., Waldrop, J., Lynn, M. R., & Jones, C. B. (2019). The role of doctor of nursing practice-prepared nurses in practice settings. Nursing outlook, 67(4), 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.02.006
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confırmatory Factor Analysıs for Applied Research. The Guildford Press.
• Bullin, C. (2018). To what extent has doctoral (PhD) education supported academic nurse educators in their teaching roles: an integrative review. BMC nursing, 17(1), 6.
• Buyukozturk, S. (2017). Manual of Data Analysis for Social Sciences. Pegem Academy.
• Cote, J. R., Netemeyer, R. & Bentler, P. (2001). Structural equation modelling—improving model fit by correlating errors. J. Consum. Psychol, 10(1, 2), 87–88.
• Council of Higher Education. (2020). Higher Education Institution Statistical Information 2020 https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
• Golino, H. F., & Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PloS one, 12(6), e0174035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174035
• Güngör, D. (2016). Guide to the Development and Adaptation of Measurement Tools in Psychology. Turkish Psychology Articles, 19 (38), 104-112. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Kapucu, S., & Bulut, H. (2018). Turkish Public University Students' Views on the Quality of PhD Education in Nursing. Journal of Higher Education (Turkey), 9(1), 84-90. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.18.022
• Karadağ, N., Özdemir, S. (2017). The Views of Faculty Members and Phd Students on the Processes of Doctoral Education in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.206
• Karaman, S., & Bakırcı, F. (2010). Postgraduate Study in Turkey: Problems And Proposed Solutıons. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 2, 94-114.
• Kim, M. J., Lee, H., Kim, H. K., Ahn, Y. H., Kim, E., Yun, S. N., & Lee, K. J. (2010). Quality of faculty, students, curriculum and resources for nursing doctoral education in Korea: a focus group study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(3), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.07.005
• Kim, M. J., McKenna, H. P., & Ketefian, S. (2006). Global quality criteria, standards, and indicators for doctoral programs in nursing; literature review and guideline development. International journal of nursing studies, 43(4), 477-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.07.003
• Kim, M. J., Park, C. G., McKenna, H., Ketefian, S., Park, S. H., Klopper, H., Lee, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Gregg, M. F., Coetzee, S., Juntasopeepun, P., Murashima, S., Keeney, S., Khan, S. (2015). Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: survey of faculty and students/graduates. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(5), 1098-1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12606
• Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Ed.), Applied Quantitative Analysis in the Social Sciences. Routledge.
• Lim, D. (2018). Quality assurance in higher education: A study of developing countries. Routledge.
• Mair, P. (2018). Factor analysis. In Modern Psychometrics with R. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93177-7_2
• Miki, Y., Gregg, M. F., Arimoto, A., Nagata, S., & Murashima, S. (2012). Evaluation of doctoral nursing programs by doctoral students in Japan: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 9(2), 160–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7924.2011.00196.x
• Miller, M. K. (2009). Nonparametric Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences. CRC Press.
• Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A Guide to Appropriate Use of Correlation Coefficient in Medical Research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69-71.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Education at a Glance 2019. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/f8d7880d-en.pdfexpires=1586460720&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=54FEA8A0275E928E8DC271EBEB64D431
• O'Rourke, N., Psych, R., Hatcher, L. (2013). A Step-By-Step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Sas Institute.
• Ozdamar, K. (2018). Statistical Data Analysis With Package Programs. Seckin Publishing.
• Sibandze, B. T., & Scafide, K. N. (2018). Among nurses, how does education level impact professional values? A systematic review. International Nursing Review, 65(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12390
• Tavsancıl, E. (2019). Measurement of Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS. Nobel Publishing.
• Turkish Higher Education Quality Council. (2020) Higher Education Quality https://yokak.gov.tr/