TURKISH VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF COVID-19 STRESS SCALES (CSS)

Öz

Objective: It is considered that evaluation of the stress level, in crisis situations, will provide a valuable source of the crisis intervention. The aim of the study was to test the Turkish validity and reliability of the COVID-19 Stress Scales. Method: This methodological study was conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with 841 nursing students and online. The data collection form included socio-demographical characteristics of the participants, COVID-19 Stress Scales, Perceived Stress Scale, Scale of Fear of COVID-19, and Scale of Coronavirus Phobia. Translations and intercultural adaptation process were used for the Turkish version of the COVID-19 Stress Scales. Content, construct and criterion validity analyzes were performed for the validity of the Scale. Internal consistency and intra-class correlation coefficients values were calculated for the reliability of the scale. Results: The mean age of the participants was 23.63±8.5. The Content Validity Index of the COVID-19 Stress Scales was calculated as 0.98. According to suggestions of the experts, the subscale of "xenophobia" was excluded from the scale. In Confirmatory Factor Analysis, fit indices were calculated at acceptable levels and good fits. The five factors were reported in the original study of the scale, was confirmed in the Turkish version. The Cronbach's α value was 0.94 for the scale total. Strong and positive correlations was found between the test and retest scores of the total scale (ICC=0.799; p=0.001). Conclusion: COVID-19 Stress Scales with 30 items and five subscales was a valid and reliable measurement tool for Turkish society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• COVID-19 Stress Scales
• Validity and Reliability
• Nursing

Proje Numarası

yok

COVID-19 STRES ÖLÇEKLERİ’NİN (CSS) TÜRKÇE GEÇERLİLİK VE GÜVENİRLİĞİ

Öz

Amaç: Kriz durumlarında stres düzeyinin değerlendirilmesinin, krize müdahale etmek için önemli bir kaynak sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı COVID-19 Stres Ölçeklerinin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini test etmekti. Yöntem: Bu metodolojik çalışma, Aralık 2020 ile Ocak 2021 tarihleri arasında 841 hemşirelik öğrencisi ile çevrimiçi olarak yapıldı. Veri toplama formu, katılımcıların sosyo-demografik özelliklerini, COVID-19 Stres Ölçekleri, Algılanan Stres Ölçeği, COVID-19 Korku Ölçeği ve Koronavirüs Fobisi Ölçeği'ni içermektedir. COVID-19 Stres Ölçekleri’nin Türkçe versiyonunda “Çeviriler ve Kültürlerarası Adaptasyon Süreci” kullanıldı. Ölçeğin geçerliği için kapsam, yapı ve ölçüt geçerlik analizleri yapıldı. Ölçeğin güvenirliği için iç tutarlılık ve sınıf içi korelasyon katsayıları hesaplandı. Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 23.63±8.5’ti. COVID-19 Stres Ölçeklerinin Kapsam Geçerlilik İndeksi 0.98 olarak hesaplandı. Uzmanların önerileri doğrultusunda “yabancı düşmanlığı” alt ölçeği, ölçekten çıkarıldı. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizinde uyum indekslerinin iyi uyum ve kabul edilebilir uyum düzeyinde olduğu hesaplandı. Orijinal ölçek çalışmasında bildirilen beş faktör, ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonunda doğrulandı. Ölçek toplamı için Cronbach's α değeri 0.94'tür. Ölçeğin toplam test ve tekrar test puanları arasında güçlü ve pozitif yönde korelasyon olduğu bulundu (ICC=0.799; p=0.001). Sonuç: Türk toplumu için 30 madde ve beş alt ölçekten oluşan COVID-19 Stres Ölçekleri, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• COVID-19 Stres Ölçekleri
• Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik
• Hemşirelik

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Proje Numarası

yok

Kaynakça

1. Kim SW, Su KP: Using psychoneuroimmunity against Covid-19. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;87(5):4-5.
2. Mo Y, Deng L, Zhang L, et.al. Work stress among Chinese nurses to support Wuhan for fighting against the Covid- 19 epidemic. J Nurs Manag. 2020;28(5):1002-1009.
3. Rajkumar RP. Ayurveda and Covid-19: where psychoneuroimmunology and the meaning response meet. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;87(5):8-9.
4. Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M. Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among health care professionals during the Covid-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020;323(21):2133-2134.
5. Sheraton M, Deo N, Dutt T, Surani S, Hall-Flavin D, Kashyap R. Psychological effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers globally: a systematic review. Psychiatry Research. 2020;292:113360.
6. Yu H, Li M, Li Z, et.al. Coping style, social support and psychological distress in the general Chinese population in the early stages of the Covid-2019 epidemic. Research Square. 2020;20(426):1-11.
7. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et.al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with Covid-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10229):1054-1062.
8. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Dashboard. 2022. Last Accessed Date: 23.09.22 Available from: https://covid19.who.int/table.

9. Gates B. Responding to Covid-19-a once-in-a-entury pandemic? N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1677-1679.
10. Holmes E, O’Connor R, Perry H, et.al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the Covid-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):547-560.
11. Rubin GJ, Potts HWW, Michie S. The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(34):183-266.
12. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et.al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061-1069.
13. Askin R, Bozkurt Y, Zeybek Z. Covid-19 pandemic: psychological effects and therapeutic interventions. Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences Covid-19 Social Sciences Special Issue. 2020;19(37):304-318.
14. Eskin M, Harlak H, Demirkiran F, Dereboy C. Adaptation of perceived stress scale to Turkish: reliability and validity analysis. New Symposium. 2013; 51(3):132-140.
15. White HA. Need for cognitive closure predicts stress and anxiety of college students during Covid-19 pandemic. Pers Individ Dif. 2022;187:111393.
16. Tillu G, Chaturvedi S, Chopra A, Patwardhan B. Public health approach of ayurveda and yoga for Covid-19 prophylaxis. J Altern Complement Med. 2020;26(5):360-364.
17. Kempuraj D, Selvakumar GP, Ahmed ME, et.al. Covid-19, mast cells, cytokine storm, psychological stress, and neuroinflammation. Neuroscientist. 2020;26(5-6):402-414.
18. Patel JA, Nielsen FBH, Badiani AA, et.al. Poverty, inequality and Covid-19: the forgotten vulnerable. Public Health. 2020;183:110-111.
19. Ozer M. Educational policy actions by the ministry of national education in the times of Covid-19. Kastamonu Education Journal. 2020;28(3):1124-1129.
20. Spoorthy MS, Pratapa SK, Mahant S. Mental health problems faced by healthcare workers due to the Covid-19 pandemic a review. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102119.
21. Sahin MK, Aker S, Sahin G, Karabekiroglu A. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, distress and insomnia and related factors in healthcare workers during Covid-19 pandemic in Turkey. J Community Health. 2020;45(6):1168-1177.
22. Holt-Lunstad J. The potential public health relevance of social isolation and loneliness: Prevalence, epidemiology, and risk factors. Public Policy & Aging Report. 2017;27(4):127-130.
23. Sim K, Chan YH, Chong PN, Chua HC, Soon SW. Psychosocial and coping responses within the community health care setting towards a national outbreak of an infectious disease. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(2):195-202.
24. Wu P, Fang Y, Guan Z, et.al. The psychological impact of the SARS epidemic on hospital employees in China: exposure, risk perception, and altruistic acceptance of risk. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-311.
25. Pakpour AH, Griffiths MD, Lin CY. Assessing psychological response to the Covid-19: the fear of Covid-19 scale and the Covid-19 stress scales. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021;19(6):2407-2410.
26. Ahorsu DK, Lin CY, Imani V, Saffari M, Griffiths MD, Pakpour AH. The fear of Covid-19 scale: development and initial validation. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2022;20(3):1537-1545.
27. Taylor S, Landry CA, Paluszek MM, Fergus TA, McKay D, Asmundson GJG. Development and initial validation of the Covid-19 stress scales. J Anxiety Disord. 2020;72:102232.
28. Arpaci I, Karatas K, Baloglu M. The development and initial tests for the psychometric properties of the Covid-19 Phobia Scale (C19P-S). Pers Individ Dif. 2020;164:110108.
29. Satici B, Göcet Tekin E, Deniz ME, Satici SA. Adaptation of the fear of Covid-19 Scale: Its association with psychological distress and life satisfaction in Turkey. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020;19(6):1980-1988.
30. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385-396.
31. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-3191.
32. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research. 1992;5(4):194-197.
33. Scherbaum CA. Synthetic validity: past, present, and future. Personnel psychology. 2005;58(2):481-515.
34. Karakoc FY, Donmez L. Basic principles in scale development studies. The World of Medical Education. 2014;40:39-49.
35. Louangrath, PI, Sutanapong, C. Validity and reliability of survey scales. International Journal of Research & Methodology in Social Science. 2018;4(3):99-114.
36. Ercan I, Kan I. Reliability and validity of scales. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Medicine. 2004;30(3):211-216.
37. Kartal M, Bardakci S, Dilmen Y. Reliability and validity analyzes with SPSS and AMOS applied examples, Ankara, 2018.
38. Erkorkmaz U, Etikan I, Demir O, Ozdamar K. Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices. Turkey Clinics Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013;33(1):210-223. Capik C. Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies. Anatolian Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences. 2014;17(3):196-205. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-online. 2003;8(8):23-74.