Adaptation of COVID-19 risk perception and COVID-19 prevention guidelines compliance scales to Turkish: a validity and reliability study

Yıl 2021, , 466 - 471, 15.07.2021

Özlem Karatana , Nazlı Kaya , Emre İşci

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.927948

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study is to make Turkish adaptation and psychometric analysis of the Covid-19 Risk Perception and Covid-19 Prevention Guideline Compliance scales.
Material and Method: The Covid-19 Risk Perception and Covid-19 Prevention Guideline Compliance scales administered to a total of 385 healthcare workers (Emergency medical technician, paramedic, ambulance driver etc.) and 50 healthcare workers were retested two weeks later. The opinions of 10 experts were taken for the content validity of the scale, the confirmatory factor analysis was performed for the construct validity, the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was calculated to determine the internal consistency, and the test-retest reliability was performed and the results were evaluated with Pearson correlation analysis.
Results: It can be concluded that an agreement among experts according to the results of the content validity index of the Turkish version of Covid-19 Risk Perception scale was found to be 0.91, the Covid-19 prevention guideline compliance scale was found to be 1. The test-retest reliability correlation of the scales was 0.85.
Conclusion: Covid-19 Risk Perception and the Covid-19 prevention guideline compliance scales were suitable for Turkish culture, and they are valid and reliable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

COVID-19, risk perception, prevention guidelines, validity and reliability

Kaynakça

• World Health Organization. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), Situation Report–12. 2020. (Available online: 02.02.2021 https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.).
• Lipsitch M, Swerdlow DL, Finelli L. Defining the epidemiology of COVID-19 studies needed. New England J Med 2020; 382: 1194-6.
• Sohrabi C, Alsafi Z, O’Neill N, et al. Corrigendum to "World Health Organization declares global emergency: a review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19)". Int J Surg 2020; 76: 71-6.
• Dryhurst S, Schneider CR , Kerr J, et al. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. J Risk Res 2020; 23: 994-1006.
• Cori L, Bianchi F, Cadum E, Anthonj C. Risk perception and COVID-19. Int J Envir Res Public Health 2020; 17: 3114.
• Van Bavel JJ, Baicker K, Boggio PS, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behav 2020; 4: 460–71.
• Epstein JM, Parker J, Cummings D, Hammond RA. Coupled contagion dynamics of fear and disease: mathematical and computational explorations. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3955.
• Funk S, Gilad E, Watkins C, Jansen AA. The spread of awareness and its impact on epidemic outbreaks. Proceed National Acad Sci 2009; 21; 106: 6872–7.
• Reluga TC. Game theory of social distancing in response to an epidemic. PLoS Comput Biol 2010; 6: e1000793–9.
• Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J App Soc Psychol 2000; 30: 407–29.
• Rogers RD. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 1975; 91: 93–114.
• Leppin A, Aro AR. Risk perceptions related to Sars and avian influenza: theoretical foundations of current empirical research. Int J Behav Med 2009; 16: 7–29.
• Wang Y, Di Y, Ye J, Wei W. Study on the public psychological states and its related factors during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some regions of China. Psychol Health Med 020; 26: 13-22.
• Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education; 2010.
• Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clearanduser-friendlyguideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 268-74.
• Plohl N, Musil B. Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: the critical role of trust in science, Psychol Health Med 2021; 26:1-12.
• Esin MN. Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları & veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. S. Erdoğan, N. Nahcivan ve M. N. Esin (Ed.), Hemşirelikte araştırma: Süreç, uygulama ve kritik içinde. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri. 2014; 169–92.
• Hinton PR, McMurray I, Brownlow C. SPSS explained. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2014.
• Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health 1997; 20: 269-74.
• Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2012.
• Özgüven İE. Psikolojik testler, güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Ankara: Sistem Ofset; 2000.
• Aksayan S, Gözüm, S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber I: ölçek uyarlama aşamaları ve dil uyarlaması. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Derg 2002; 4: 9-14.
• Ercan İ, Kan İ. Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Derg 2004; 30: 211-6.
• Eser E, Baydur H. Sağlıkta yaşam kalitesi ölçeklerinin psikometrik çözümlemesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik. 2. Sağlıkta Yaşam Kalitesi Kongresi. İzmir: Kongre Öncesi Kurs Notları; 2007; 3- 29.
• Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık; 2005.
• Aksayan S, Gözüm S. Kültürler arası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Derg 2003; 5: 3-14.
• Kline P. Handbook of psychological testing. 2th ed. London and New York: Routledge; 2013.
• Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. USA: Oxford University Press; 2015.