Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Health Protective Behavior Scale

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to perform the Turkish adaptation study of the Health Protective Behavior Scale. Methods: This was a methodological study that was conducted between August 2020 and September 2020. The sample of the study consists of 384 individuals aged 18-59 living in the city center of Kayseri. In this study, "Descriptive Information Form" and "Health Protective Behavior Scale (HPBS)" were used as data collection tools. The reliability of the scale was evaluated by internal consistency, Pearson correlation, and test-retest reliability. The construct validity of the scale was tested by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Results: According to the results of the explanatory factor analysis, 40.748% variance was explained in 4 dimensions in the scale. In the confirmatory factor analysis, a four-dimensional structure was found to fit well (X2/df=2.213 RMSEA=0.056). As a result of the reliability analysis of the scale, it was found that the internal consistency coefficient was α = .82 and the test-retest reliability was r = .81. Conclusion: It has been determined that HPBS is a valid and reliable measurement tool to determine health protective and development behaviors.

Keywords

• behavior
• health
• protective
• reliability
• validity

References

1. 1. Edelman CL, CL Mandle, EC, Kudzma. Health promotion throughout the life span-e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017.
2. 2. Sorensen G, McLellan D, Dennerlein JT, et al. Integration of health protection and health promotion: rationale, indicators, and metrics. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2013;55:12.
3. 3. Maville JA, CG Huerta. Health Promotion in Nursing (Book Only). Cengage Learning. 2012.
4. 4. WHO, The global burden of disease: 2004 update. 2004.
5. 5. Senapati SN, Bharti, A. Bhattacharya Modern lifestyle diseases: chronic diseases, awareness and prevention. Int J Curr Res Acad Rev 2015;3:215-23.
6. 6. Takeuchi K. Hypertension and metabolic syndrome/lifestyle diseases. Rinsho byori. The Japanese journal of clinical pathology 2007;55:452-456.
7. 7. Ping W, Cao W, Tan H, et al. Health protective behavior scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. PloS one, 2018;13:e0190390.
8. 8. Walker CA. Coalescing the theories of two nurse visionaries: Parse and Watson. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1996;24:988-996.

9. 9. Bahar Z, Açıl D. Sağlığı geliştirme modeli: kavramsal yapı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi 2014;7:59-67.
10. 10. Harris DM, Guten S. Health-protective behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of health and social behavior 1979:17-29.
11. 11. Walker SN, Sechrist KR, Pender NJ. The health-promoting lifestyle profile: development and psychometric characteristics. Nursing research 1987;36:71-81.
12. 12. WHO, A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health, Commission on Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Editor. 2007.
13. 13. Irvine L, Elliott L, Wallace H, Crombie IK. A review of major influences on current public health policy in developed countries in the second half of the 20th century. The journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 2006;126:73-78.
14. 14. Riley L, Cowan M. World Health Organization noncommunicable diseases country profiles. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2014.
15. 15. Grove SK, Burns N. Gray J. The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence, ed. M. 7nd ed. St. Louis. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
16. 16. Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç E, Çakmak Ö, et al. Demirel Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 16nd ed.. PegemA Yayıncılık; 2014.
17. 17. Kline R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 154-186.
18. 18. Kolaç N, Balcı AS, Şişman FN, Ataçer BE, Dinçer S. Fabrika Çalışanlarında Sağlıklı Yaşam Biçimi Davranışı ve Sağlık Algısı. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi 2018;14:267-74.
19. 19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6nd ed. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2013.
20. 20. Seçer İ, SPSS ve LISREL ile Pratik Veri Analizi. Anı yayıncılık; 2017.
21. 21. Pallant J, SPSS kullanma kılavuzu: SPSS Ile Adım Adım Veri Analizi. Anı Yayıncılık; 2017.
22. 22. Balcı A. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. PegemA Yayıncılık; 2009.
23. 23. Çakır A. Faktör Analizi. İstanbul. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi; 2014.
24. 24. Bakaç E. Toplumsal değerlere yönelik algı ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2013;2:303-309.
25. 25. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
26. 26. Er K, Ünal T. Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik dil bilgisi tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2016;1:343-356.
27. 27. Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç E, Çakmak Ö, et al. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. 26nd ed. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 2017: p. 1-360.
28. 28. Can A. SPSS Ile Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi. 2nd ed. Pegem A Yayıncılık; 2014.