Bebek Gelişim Bilgisi Envanterinin Türkçe Versiyonunun Psikometrik Özellikleri

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 3, 257 - 266, 24.09.2025

Gülhan Yılmaz Bursa

https://doi.org/10.17049/jnursology.1515533

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Bebek Gelişimi Bilgi Envanteri'ni (BGBE) Türkçe'ye uyarlamak ve 0-2 yaş arası çocukların ebeveynleri arasında geçerlik ve güvenirliğini değerlendirmektir.

Yöntemler: Araştırma, yöntemsel bir desenle ve 464 ebeveyn ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. BGBE Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş ve uzmanlardan görüş almak için İçerik Geçerlilik İndeksi ve İçerik Geçerlilik Oranı kullanılmıştır. Ölçek iki farklı puanlama yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. İlk yöntemde yanıtlar doğru, emin değilim, aşırı tahmin ve düşük tahmin şeklinde sınıflandırılmıştır. İkinci yöntemde ise maddeler doğru (1) ve yanlış (0) olarak kodlanmış ve dikotomik analizler uygulanmıştır. Geçerlilik, açıklayıcı faktör analizi (AFA), ölçek ile Spearman korelasyonu kullanılarak eş zamanlı geçerlilik ve tetrakorik AFA ve Rasch modellemesi yoluyla yapı geçerliliği ile değerlendirilmiştir. Güvenilirlik Cronbach alfa (hem klasik hem de tetrakorik), test-tekrar test ve %27’lik grup ayırt edicilik analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Kapsam geçerliliği teyit edilmiş ve AFA orijinal ölçekle tutarlı dört faktörlü bir yapıyı destekleyerek varyansın %57,94'ünü açıklamıştır. Ölçek, CKCDI ile güçlü eşzamanlı geçerlilik göstermiştir (r = ,908, P < ,001). Dikotom analizde, tetrakorik AFA ve Rasch modellemesi kabul edilebilir yapısal geçerlilik ve madde uyumu göstermiştir (0,7-1,3). Cronbach alfa değeri 0,81'dir (tetrakorik) ve %27'lik üst-alt grup karşılaştırması güçlü madde ayırt ediciliği ortaya koymuştur.

Sonuç: BGBE'nin Türkçe versiyonu ebeveynler için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olarak bulunmuştur. Profesyoneller, bu ölçeği ebeveynlerin bebeklerinin gelişimsel basamakları ve normları konusundaki bilgi ve anlayış düzeylerini değerlendirmek amacıyla kullanabilirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ebeveyn bilgisi , bebek gelişimi , bebek gelişim bilgisi , güvenilirlik , geçerlilik

Psychometric Properties of The Turkish Version of The Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to adapt the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) into Turkish and to evaluate its validity and reliability among parents of children aged 0–2 years.

Methods: A methodological design was employed with 464 parents. The KIDI was translated into Turkish and The Content Validity Index and Content Validity Ratio were used to get opinions from the experts. The KIDI was analyzed using two scoring approaches. In the first, responses were categorized as accurate, attempted, underestimated, or overestimated, following original format. In the second approach, items were scored dichotomously as correct (1) or incorrect (0). Validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), concurrent validity using Spearman correlation with the CKCDI, and construct validity via tetrachoric EFA and Rasch modeling. Reliability was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha (both classical and tetrachoric), test-retest, and item discrimination analysis.

Results: Content validity was confirmed (CVI = 1.00), and EFA supported a four-factor structure consistent with the original scale, explaining 57.94% of the variance. The scale showed strong concurrent validity with CKCDI (r = .908, P < .001). In the dichotomous analysis, tetrachoric EFA and Rasch modeling indicated acceptable structural validity and item fit (infit/outfit range: 0.7–1.3). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81 (tetrachoric), and the 27% upper-lower group comparison revealed strong item discrimination.

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the KIDI was found to be a valid and reliable instrument for parent. Professionals can use this scale to assess parents’ understanding of infant developmental milestones and norms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Parental knowledge , infant development , infant development knowledge , reliability , validity

Kaynakça

• 1. Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Suwalsky JT. A longitudinal process analysis of mother-child emotional relationships in a rural Appalachian European American community. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50(1-2):89-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9479-1
• 2. Coleman PK, Karraker KH. Maternal self‐efficacy beliefs, competence in parenting, and toddlers' behavior and developmental status. Infant Ment Health J. 2003;24(2):126-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10048
• 3. Özkan Kunduracı HK, Aksoy AB. The Effects of" Mother Education Program" on Mothers' Parenting Knowledge, Parenting Self-Efficacy and Their Children's Development. Education & Science. 2025;50(221):1-31. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2024.12515
• 4. Awad MYH, Warasna HJM, Shahin FBY, Awad BYH, Jobran AW, Abdulrazzak M, Owais TA. Understanding parental awareness of child developmental milestones in West Bank-Palestine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2025; 25:1128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21991-2
• 5. Jeong J, Franchett EE, Ramos de Oliveira CV, Rehmani K, Yousafzai AK. Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2021;18(5):e1003602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003602.
• 6. Veddovi M, Kenny DT, Gibson F, Bowen J, Starte D. The relationship between depressive symptoms following premature birth, mothers' coping style, and knowledge of infant development. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2001;19(4):313-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830127205
• 7. Pereira KR, Valentini NC, Saccani R. Brazilian infant motor and cognitive development: Longitudinal influence of risk factors. Pediatr Int. 2016;58(12):1297-1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.13021
• 8. MacPhee D. Manual: Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University; 2002.
• 9. Ahn SH, Ahn HJ, Moon HJ. Knowledge about infant development of pre-service and in-service child care teachers. Korean J Child Stud. 2008;29(5):271-283. https://www.koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200828066506567.page
• 10. Grochola M. A study of empathy and parental knowledge of an infant development in correlation with parental attitudes in the cultures of Poland and Vietnam Master Thesis. Warsaw University of Social Sciences and Humanities; 2016.
• 11. Alkherainej K. The factor structure of Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory–Arabic version. Egypt J Educ Sci. 2024;4(2):125-150. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejes.2024.413506
• 12. Safadi RR, Ahmad M, Nassar OS, Alashhab SA, Abdelkader R, Amre HM. Jordanian mothers’ knowledge of infants’ childrearing and developmental milestones. Int Nurs Rev. 2016;63:50-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12185
• 13. Alqurashi FO, Awary BH, Khan BF, AlARhain SA, Alkhaleel AI, Albahrani BA, Alali AS. Assessing knowledge of Saudi mothers with regard to parenting and child developmental milestones. J Family Community Med. 2021;28(3):202-209. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_186_21
• 14. Bornstein MH, Cote LR, Haynes OM, Hahn CS, Park Y. Parenting knowledge: Experiential and sociodemographic factors in European American mothers of young children. Dev Psychol. 2010;46:1677-1693. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020677
• 15. Winter L, Morawska A, Sanders M. The Knowledge of Effective Parenting Scale (KEPS): A tool for public health approaches to universal parenting programs. J Prim Prev. 2012;33:85-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-012-0268-x
• 16. Ertem IO, Atay G, Dogan DG, Bayhan A, Bingoler BE, Gok CG, Ozbas S, Haznedaroglu D, Isikli S. Mothers’ knowledge of young child development in a developing country. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33(6):728-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00751.x
• 17. Bryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: a guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge; 2002.
• 18. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
• 19. Yurdagül H, Bayrak F. Content validity measures in scale development studies: Comparison of content validity index and Kappa statistic. Hacettepe Univ J Fac Educ. 2012;2:264-271. http://efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/655-published.pdf
• 20. Veneziano L, Hooper J. A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. Am J Health Behav. 1997;21(1):67-70. https://research.ebsco.com/c/o47xhr/search/details/26qyf65wif?db=asn
• 21. Büyüköztürk Ş. Handbook of data analysis for social sciences statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation. 31. edition. Pegem Academy; 2024.
• 22. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software; 1993
• 23. Holgado-Tello FP, Chacón-Moscoso S, Barbero-García I, Vila-Abad E. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Qual Quant. 2010;44(1):153-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
• 24. Smith AB, Rush R, Fallowfield LJ, Velikova G, Sharpe M. Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-33
• 25. Kelley TL. The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. J Educ Psychol. 1939;30(1):17-24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057123
• 26. Green SB, Salkind NJ. Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding the data. Boston, MA: Pearson Press; 2021.
• 27. Gadermann AM, Guhn M, Zumbo BD. Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2012;17(3):1-13. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767
• 28. Kuruçırak Ş. The Relationship Between Fatherhood Role Perception and Participation in Infant Care of Fathers with 4-12 Month Old Infants Master Thesis. University of Akdeniz; 2010.
• 29. Gondim EC, Scorzafave LGDS, Santos DD, Henrique NCP, Pereira FM, Mello DF. Resilience and the reduction of occupational stress in Nursing. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem. 2022;30:e3675. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.5967.3675
• 30. Gürel SA, Gürel H, Balcan E. The status of obtaining information about pregnancy, birth and postnatal period during antenatal care. Journal of Perinatology. 2006;14(2):90-95. Available from: https://www.perinataldergi.com/Archive/Article/20060142006.
• 31. Kahraman S, Kabalcıoğlu F, Ersin F. Knowledge levels of pregnant women in Şanlıurfa about infant care. Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2016;36:79-97. https://doi.org/10.21560/spcd.92701
• 32. Şahinöz A, Bütün Ayhan AV. Assessment of mothers’ knowledge and anxiety levels about developmenta at infancy. Turk J Pediatr Dis. 2020;14(3):249-257. https://doi.org/10.12956/tchd.571468